Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Starting Point of the One-Year Extinctive Prescription for the Right to Claim Damages for Market Price Manipulation under the Securities and Exchange Act
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Dec. 26, 2002, 2000Da23440 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상(기)·대여금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Does the one-year extinctive prescription for the right to claim damages under Articles 188-4 and 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act run from the time a guilty criminal judgment is pronounced against, or becomes final as to, the violator?
Holding
The one-year extinctive prescription runs from the time the holder of the claim becomes aware of the fact that the violating act occurred. The Supreme Court held that the time of the pronouncement or finalization of a guilty criminal judgment cannot be regarded as the starting point.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
1년의 소멸시효는 청구권자가 그 위반행위가 있었던 사실을 안 때부터 기산되어야 하며, 위반자에 대한 유죄의 형사판결이 선고되거나 확정된 때부터 기산되어야 한다고 볼 수 없다.
Unofficial English translation
The one-year extinctive prescription must run from the time the claimant became aware of the fact that the violation had occurred, and cannot be regarded as running from the time a guilty criminal judgment against the violator was pronounced or became final and conclusive.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
청구권자가 그 위반행위가 있었던 사실을 안 때부터 기산되어야 하며
Unofficial English translation
must run from the time the claimant became aware of the fact that the violation had occurred, and
Factors
- 증권거래법 제188조의4, 5에 터잡은 손해배상청구권에 대한 1년의 소멸시효
- 청구권자가 그 위반행위가 있었던 사실을 안 때부터 기산되어야 하며
- 위반자에 대한 유죄의 형사판결이 선고되거나 확정된 때부터 기산되어야 한다고 볼 수 없다
Unofficial English translation
• The one-year extinctive prescription for the right to claim damages based on Articles 188-4 and 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act
• must run from the time the claimant became aware of the fact that the violation had occurred, and
• cannot be regarded as running from the time a guilty criminal judgment against the violator was pronounced or became final and conclusive
Relation to precedent
Cannot be determined Not in the decision
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
How is it determined whether "becoming aware of the fact that the violating act occurred" requires awareness only of the existence of the violating act, or whether it requires recognition of the occurrence of the damage and of causation as well?
Where the extinctive prescription provision of Article 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act has been replaced by the corresponding provision of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act and the wording of the starting point has changed, this reading is to be checked again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another line of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the initial reading, all eight axes matched.
Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The court below regarded the claim for damages based on Articles 188-4 and 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act as having been added in the court below, and held that the plaintiff had become aware of the fact of the unlawful act no later than the time of filing the complaint in this Case, so that the extinctive prescription prescribed by that Act had been completed as to that claim.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, stating that the extinctive prescription runs from the time one becomes aware of the fact of the violating act and that the time of the pronouncement or finalization of a guilty criminal judgment is not the starting point, concurred in the determination of the court below. It viewed the Supreme Court decisions cited by the plaintiff as involving different circumstances, and, finding also that the alleged violations of the duty to clarify and of the rules of evidence (rules of fact-finding) without merit, dismissed the final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the basis of the claim is not Articles 188-4 and 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act but other provisions, such as tort under the Civil Act, so that a separate extinctive prescription provision applies
- Where the record discloses the circumstance that the holder of the claim could not have known of the existence of the violating act itself until the criminal judgment
- Where a subsequent statutory provision prescribing a different period or starting point of extinctive prescription applies
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it must first be checked when the holder of the claim is found to have actually become aware of the fact of the violating act, and whether there is material indicating that such recognition existed before the filing of the complaint.
From the official text
Points at issue
증권거래법 제188조의5 소정의 ‘손해배상청구권의 소멸시효’의 기산점
Unofficial English translation
The starting point of the extinctive prescription of the 'right to claim damages' prescribed in Article 188-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act
Summary of the holding
증권거래법 제188조의4, 5에 터잡은 손해배상청구권에 대한 1년의 소멸시효는 청구권자가 그 위반행위가 있었던 사실을 안 때부터 기산되어야 하며, 위반자에 대한 유죄의 형사판결이 선고되거나 확정된 때부터 기산되어야 한다고 볼 수 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고(반소피고)의 부담으로 한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff (counter-defendant).
Provisions referred to
증권거래법 제188조의4, 제188조의5
Read 2026-10-16 · Cross-read 2026-10-16. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger