Open Decision Ledger · Capital markets & finance
Method of Calculating Damages under the Civil Act for an Investor Who Acquired Shares at a Price Formed by the Dissemination of False Information
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, May 14, 2015, 2013Da11621 (judgment)
Case name: 손해배상
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where an investor who acquired shares at a price formed by the dissemination of false information or the like, in the primary market or the secondary market, claims damages under the Civil Act, how are the damages calculated?
Holding
The damages are the difference between the normal share price that would have been formed at the time of acquisition had the unlawful act not occurred and the amount actually paid by the investor, and, where the shares were sold at or above the normal share price, the difference between the amount actually paid and the selling price. The normal share price may be estimated by reasonable means, such as a financial economics method that calculates a normal rate of return through a regression equation on the basis of an expert appraisal.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
투자자가 입은 손해는 그와 같은 위법행위가 없었더라면 취득 당시 형성되었으리라고 인정되는 정상주가와 위법행위로 인하여 형성된 주가로서 투자자가 주식 취득을 위하여 실제 지급한 금액과의 차액 상당(투자자가 정상주가 이상의 가격으로 매도한 경우에는 실제 지급한 금액과 매도주가와의 차액 상당)으로 볼 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
The damages suffered by the investor may be regarded as the difference between the normal share price recognized as having been formed at the time of acquisition had there been no such unlawful act and the amount actually paid by the investor for the acquisition of the shares as the share price formed by the unlawful act (where the investor sold the shares at a price equal to or higher than the normal share price, the difference between the amount actually paid and the selling price).
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고와 부대상고를 모두 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal and the incidental appeal are both dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
사건기간 중의 정상주가를 추정하는 금융경제학적 방식 등의 합리적인 방법에 의할 수 있다.
Unofficial English translation
may be determined by reasonable methods such as financial and econometric methods of estimating the normal share price during the period of the case.
Factors
- 위법행위가 없었더라면 취득 당시 형성되었으리라고 인정되는 정상주가
- 투자자가 주식 취득을 위하여 실제 지급한 금액과의 차액 상당
- 그 차이가 통계적으로 의미가 있는 경우 위법행위의 영향으로 주가가 변동되었다고 보고
- 종합주가지수, 업종지수 및 동종업체의 주가 등 공개된 지표 중 가장 적절한 것
Unofficial English translation
• the normal share price recognized as having been formed at the time of acquisition had there been no such unlawful act
• the amount of the difference from the amount actually paid by the investor for the acquisition of the shares
• where such difference is statistically significant, it is regarded that the share price was affected and fluctuated by the unlawful act
• the most appropriate one among such publicly available indicators as the composite stock price index, the industry index, and the share prices of companies of the same kind
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2004. 5. 28. 선고 2003다69607, 69614 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2003Da69607, 69614 decided May 28, 2004
Decisions referred to
대법원 2004. 5. 28. 선고 2003다69607, 69614 판결(공2004하, 1067)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a third party's market manipulation and the defendants' false disclosure both affected the share price, by what standard should the proportion for which causation is recognized as to the defendants' acts be apportioned?
This reading will be re-examined if a Supreme Court decision that determines the method of estimating the normal share price differently in relation to the calculation of investor losses caused by a false disclosure, or an interpretation of the damages estimation provision of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act, is issued.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
When compared with an independent reading by another AI family (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the first reading, 7 of the 8 axes agreed, and the readings diverged on the eighth axis (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a third party's market manipulation and the defendants' false disclosure both affected the share price, by what standard should the proportion for which causation is recognized as to the defendants' acts be apportioned?” vs Independent “Where different public indicators and regression models produce substantially different normal share prices, which model should be adopted?”
The first reading asks about the allocation of the causation proportion where several unlawful acts contributed together, while the independent reading asks about the criteria for choosing between different models in estimating the normal share price.
투자자가 입은 손해는 그와 같은 위법행위가 없었더라면 취득 당시 형성되었으리라고 인정되는 정상주가와 위법행위로 인하여 형성된 주가로서 투자자가 주식 취득을 위하여 실제 지급한 금액과의 차액 상당(투자자가 정상주가 이상의 가격으로 매도한 경우에는 실제 지급한 금액과 매도주가와의 차액 상당)으로 볼 수 있다.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 recognized the defendants' joint and several liability for compensation on the ground of Defendant 2's false disclosure and dissemination of false information and Defendant 3's lending of the name of a director and failure to take action. It took the period during which the share price was statistically significantly affected to be from May 10, 2006 to June 20, 2006, and calculated the per-share damages as follows: for the new shares from the paid-in capital increase, the amount remaining after subtracting the normal share price on the effective date of 693 won from the subscription price of 1,050 won; and for the purchases on the KOSDAQ market, an amount corresponding to the proportion for which causation is recognized as to the defendants' acts within the difference between the average purchase price of 1,276.5 won and the appraised share price of 694 won. It further limited the liability to 60% of the loss and rejected the defense of extinctive prescription.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court viewed the amount of damages found by the court below as ultimately equal to the amount obtained by subtracting, from the amount actually paid, the share price that would have been formed at the time of acquisition had the defendants' acts not occurred, and thus as justifiable in the result. It held that, since a false disclosure and the dissemination of false information are not acts of wrongful gain, comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault) or limitation of liability is permissible and the 60% limitation is not manifestly unreasonable, and it also upheld the rejection of the defense of extinctive prescription on the ground that the action was filed within three years from the date of the first false disclosure, thereby dismissing both the final appeal and the ancillary appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where the claim is based not on a tort (unlawful act) under the Civil Act but on the damages estimation provision of the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act
- Where the fluctuation of the share price does not show a statistically significant relation to the unlawful act, or where the event period cannot be specified
- Where the harmful act constitutes an act of wrongful gain, such as fraud, embezzlement, or breach of trust, so that comparative negligence (offsetting plaintiff's fault) or limitation of liability is restricted
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same method of calculation, it needs to be checked whether the appraisal of the normal share price was based on appropriate public indicators around the event period, and whether the influence of other factors, such as a third party's market manipulation, has been separated.
From the official text
Points at issue
허위사실 유포 등의 행위로 인하여 형성된 가격으로 발행시장 또는 유통시장에서 주식을 취득한 투자자가 불법행위를 이유로 민법상 손해배상청구를 하는 경우, 투자자가 입은 손해를 산정하는 방법
Unofficial English translation
Where an investor who acquired shares in the primary market or the secondary market at a price formed by such acts as the dissemination of false information files a claim for damages under the Civil Act on the ground of tort (unlawful act), the method of calculating the damages suffered by the investor
Summary of the holding
허위사실 유포 등의 행위로 인하여 형성된 가격으로 발행시장 또는 유통시장에서 주식을 취득한 투자자가 그러한 불법행위를 이유로 민법상 손해배상청구를 하는 경우, 투자자가 입은 손해는 그와 같은 위법행위가 없었더라면 취득 당시 형성되었으리라고 인정되는 정상주가와 위법행위로 인하여 형성된 주가로서 투자자가 주식 취득을 위하여 실제 지급한 금액과의 차액 상당(투자자가 정상주가 이상의 가격으로 매도한 경우에는 실제 지급한 금액과 매도주가와의 차액 상당)으로 볼 수 있다. 여기서 정상주가를 산정할 때에는, 전문가의 감정을 통하여 그와 같은 위법행위의 영향을 받은 기간(사건기간) 중의 주가동향과 위법행위가 없었더라면 진행되었을 주가동향을 비교하여 그 차이가 통계적으로 의미가 있는 경우 위법행위의 영향으로 주가가 변동되었다고 보고, 사건기간 이전 또는 이후 일정 기간의 종합주가지수, 업종지수 및 동종업체의 주가 등 공개된 지표 중 가장 적절한 것을 바탕으로 도출한 회귀방정식을 이용하여 사건기간 동안의 정상수익률을 산출한 다음 이를 기초로 사건기간 중의 정상주가를 추정하는 금융경제학적 방식 등의 합리적인 방법에 의할 수 있다.
Order
상고와 부대상고를 모두 기각한다. 원고와 피고 주식회사 코리아본뱅크 사이의 상고비용과 부대상고비용은 각자 부담하고, 원고와 피고 2, 피고 3 사이의 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal and the incidental appeal are both dismissed. The appeal costs and the incidental appeal costs between the plaintiff and the defendant Korea Bonbank Co., Ltd. shall be borne by each party, and the appeal costs between the plaintiff and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Provisions referred to
민법 제393조, 제750조, 제763조
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