Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
The date serving as the criterion for the six-month period in the disgorgement of short-swing profits and whether a memorandum of agreement constitutes the conclusion of a contract
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, Mar. 10, 2011, 2010Da84420 (judgment)
Case name: 단기매매차익반환
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Under the short-swing profit disgorgement system of the former Securities and Exchange Act, which date is used to determine whether a transaction is a short-swing transaction within six months, and may the date on which a memorandum of agreement providing for the transfer of shares was concluded be regarded as the date of sale?
Holding
Whether a transaction is a short-swing transaction within six months is determined on the basis of the date the contract was concluded, and the point in time at which the contract was concluded is a matter of interpretation of the juristic act. The Supreme Court affirmed the court below, which held that the memorandum of agreement in this case was no more than a preliminary agreement premised on a subsequent definitive sale and purchase contract, and that the sale was made on the date the stock purchase agreement was prepared.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
6월 이내의 단기매매인지 여부는 계약체결일을 기준으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether a transaction constitutes a short-swing transaction within 6 months must be determined on the basis of the date of conclusion of the contract.
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
6월 이내의 단기매매인지 여부는 계약체결일을 기준으로 판단하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Whether a transaction constitutes a short-swing transaction within 6 months must be determined on the basis of the date of conclusion of the contract.
Factors
- 그 문언의 내용과 법률행위가 이루어지게 된 동기 및 경위
- 당사자가 법률행위에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 목적과 진정한 의사
- 거래의 관행
- 추후 별도의 확정적인 매매계약 성립을 전제로 예비적인 사항들을 합의하기 위하여 작성된 것
Unofficial English translation
• the content of its wording and the motive and circumstances under which the juristic act came to be made
• the purpose the parties intended to achieve by the juristic act and their true intent
• trade practices
• having been drafted in order to agree upon preliminary matters on the premise that a separate definitive sale and purchase agreement would subsequently be concluded
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 3. 13. 선고 2006다73218 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Da73218 decided March 13, 2008
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2004. 2. 13. 선고 2001다36580 판결(공2004상, 451), 대법원 2004. 5. 28. 선고 2003다60396 판결(공2004하, 1061), 대법원 2008. 3. 13. 선고 2006다73218 판결(공2008상, 517)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the parties have fixed the principal terms of the sale and purchase but deferred only payment of the price or delivery of the share certificates, is the date of that agreement still treated as the date the contract was concluded for the purpose of calculating the six-month period?
We will re-examine this reading if the interpretation of the timing of purchase and sale under Article 172 (1) of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act changes or if a relevant decision is handed down.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
A comparison with an independent reading by another family of AI (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, showed that six of the eight axes agreed, while the readings diverged on Axis 4 (Form of the test) and Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 4 (Form of the test): Primary “Elements stated” vs Independent “Circumstances weighed”
Because the original text presents both the criterion of the date the contract was concluded and the method of comprehensively interpreting the time of formation of the contract in light of various circumstances, the first reading may place weight on the former and the independent reading on the latter.
그 문언의 내용과 법률행위가 이루어지게 된 동기 및 경위, 당사자가 법률행위에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 목적과 진정한 의사, 거래의 관행 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the parties have fixed the principal terms of the sale and purchase but deferred only payment of the price or delivery of the share certificates, is the date of that agreement still treated as the date the contract was concluded for the purpose of calculating the six-month period?” vs Independent “Where the memorandum of agreement fixes the subject matter and the price of the sale and purchase but leaves some terms of performance to be agreed later, when is the sale and purchase contract formed?”
The first reading asks about the case where the principal terms are fixed and only performance is deferred, whereas the independent reading asks about the case where agreement on some terms of performance remains outstanding.
6월 이내의 단기매매인지 여부는 계약체결일을 기준으로 판단하여야 한다.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 first-instance judgment, adopted by the court below, took into account in totality the circumstances that the date of the contract stated in the stock purchase agreement attached to the memorandum of agreement was left blank and that the transferring shareholder and the quantity had not been determined, that the agreement on the appointment of officers could be understood as signifying the granting of an opportunity for due diligence, and that the creation of a pledge itself was difficult to regard as a sale, and concluded that the memorandum of agreement was a preliminary agreement and that the sale of the shares took place on August 14, 2007.
Supreme Court standard: After setting out the legal principle that whether a transaction is a short-swing transaction is determined on the basis of the date the contract was concluded and that the point in time at which the contract was concluded is a matter of interpretation of the juristic act, the Supreme Court found that the first-instance judgment, as upheld by the court below, contained no misapprehension of legal principles regarding the time of purchase or sale and no unlawful interpretation of the memorandum of agreement, and dismissed the plaintiff's final appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where a memorandum of agreement or a memorandum of understanding fixes the principal terms such as the quantity of the shares to be sold and purchased, the price, and the date of the contract, so that it is itself interpreted as a definitive sale and purchase contract
- Where the objective meaning of the time the contract was concluded is clearly apparent from the parties' wording, so that no separate interpretation is needed
- Where, as in on-exchange trading, the conclusion of the contract and settlement are standardized in a transaction for which no separate preliminary agreement stage exists
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it needs to be checked whether the subject matter of the sale and purchase, the price, and the time for performance are already specified in the wording of the preceding agreement, and whether the subsequent contract merely serves in form to confirm those terms.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 구 증권거래법 제188조 제2항에서 정한 ‘단기매매차익 반환제도’의 취지 및 6월 이내의 단기매매인지 여부의 판단 기준일(=계약체결일) [2] 구 증권거래법상 코스닥상장법인의 대표이사가 제3자로부터 매수한 그 법인의 주식을 양도하기로 하는 내용의 합의각서를 체결하고 약 6개월의 기간이 경과한 후 주식매매계약서를 작성한 사안에서, 위 합의각서는 추후 별도의 확정적인 매매계약 성립을 전제로 작성된 것으로 보이므로, 주식 매도는 위 주식매매계약서를 작성한 날에 이루어졌다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례
Unofficial English translation
[1] The purpose of the "short-swing profit disgorgement system" provided in paragraph (2) of Article 188 of the former Securities and Exchange Act, and the reference date (= the date of conclusion of the contract) for determining whether a transaction constitutes a short-swing transaction within 6 months [2] In a case where, under the former Securities and Exchange Act, the representative director of a KOSDAQ-listed company entered into a memorandum of agreement to transfer shares of that corporation which he had purchased from a third party, and drafted a share sale and purchase agreement after a period of approximately 6 months had elapsed, the court below held that the share sale took place on the date the said share sale and purchase agreement was drafted, on the ground that the said memorandum of agreement appears to have been drafted on the premise that a separate definitive sale and purchase agreement would subsequently be concluded; a case affirming that holding
Summary of the holding
[1] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제188조 제2항에서 정한 단기매매차익 반환제도는, 주권상장법인 또는 코스닥상장법인의 내부자가 6월 이내의 단기간에 그 법인의 주식 등을 매매하는 경우 미공개 내부정보를 이용하였을 개연성이 크다는 점에서, 거래 자체는 허용하되 그 대신 내부자가 실제로 미공개 내부정보를 이용하였는지 여부나 내부자에게 미공개 내부정보를 이용하여 이득을 취하려는 의사가 있었는지 여부를 묻지 않고 내부자로 하여금 그 거래로 얻은 이익을 법인에 반환하도록 함으로써 내부자가 미공개 내부정보를 이용하여 법인의 주식 등을 거래하는 행위를 간접적으로 규제하는 제도이다. 내부정보를 이용할 가능성이 높은 단기매매를 6월이라는 기간요건하에 간접적으로 규제하고자 하는 단기매매차익 반환제도의 취지와 더불어 민법상 매매는 당사자 일방이 재산권을 상대방에게 이전할 것을 약정하고 상대방이 그 대금을 지급할 것을 약정함으로써 그 효력이 생긴다(민법 제563조)는 점을 고려하면, 6월 이내의 단기매매인지 여부는 계약체결일을 기준으로 판단하여야 한다. 그리고 어느 시점에 계약체결이 있었는지는 법률행위 해석의 문제로서 당사자가 표시한 문언에 의하여 객관적인 의미가 명확하게 드러나지 않는 경우에는 그 문언의 내용과 법률행위가 이루어지게 된 동기 및 경위, 당사자가 법률행위에 의하여 달성하려고 하는 목적과 진정한 의사, 거래의 관행 등을 종합적으로 고찰하여 논리와 경험의 법칙, 그리고 사회일반의 상식과 거래의 통념에 따라 합리적으로 해석하여야 한다. [2] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지)상 코스닥상장법인의 대표이사가 제3자로부터 매수한 그 법인의 주식을 양도하기로 하는 내용의 합의각서를 체결하고 약 6개월의 기간이 경과한 후 주식매매계약서를 작성한 사안에서, 제반 사정상 위 합의각서는 추후 별도의 확정적인 매매계약 성립을 전제로 예비적인 사항들을 합의하기 위하여 작성된 것이고, 매매계약 체결 여부 등은 제반 진행상황을 보아가면서 추후 결정하기로 합의한 것으로 보아야 하므로, 주식 매도는 위 주식매매계약서를 작성한 날에 이루어졌다고 본 원심판단을 수긍한 사례.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of the final appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
[1] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제188조 제2항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제172조 제1항 참조), 민법 제105조, 제563조 [2] 구 증권거래법(2007. 8. 3. 법률 제8635호 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 부칙 제2조로 폐지) 제188조 제2항(현행 자본시장과 금융투자업에 관한 법률 제172조 제1항 참조), 민법 제105조, 제563조
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