Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Measures a court may take when some representative parties lose their eligibility in the permission procedure for a securities-related class action
Translated from the Korean original. Read the Korean
Supreme Court, July 5, 2018, 2017Ma5883 (ruling)
Case name: 증권관련집단소송허가신청
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where, as a result of a change in the scope of the class, some representative parties fall outside the membership, may the court deny permission of the securities-related class lawsuit on that ground alone?
Holding
The court must examine whether the representative parties may be composed of those among the persons who filed the action and the applying members who satisfy the requirements, excluding those who do not, and whether the requirements of Article 3 and Article 12 of the Act are satisfied; if the requirements are met, the court must permit the lawsuit. The Supreme Court reversed the court below, limited to the portion concerning Yuanta Securities, which had denied permission solely because two persons lacked eligibility even though the other representative parties remained members.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
법원은 대표당사자의 요건을 갖추지 못한 자를 제외하고 증권관련집단소송의 소를 제기한 자 및 대표당사자가 되기를 원하여 신청서를 제출한 구성원 중 법에 정한 요건을 갖춘 자로서 대표당사자를 구성할 수 있는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
whether the court may constitute representative parties from among those who have filed the complaint in the securities-related class action and those members who have submitted an application wishing to become representative parties, who meet the requirements prescribed by law, excluding those who do not meet the requirements of a representative party
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심결정 중 피고(상대방) 유안타증권 주식회사에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the order of the court below concerning the defendant (counterpart) Yuanta Securities Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
소송허가 신청이 위와 같은 요건을 갖추었다면 증권관련집단소송을 허가하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
If the application for authorization of the action meets the requirements as described above, the court must authorize the securities-related class action.
Factors
- 대표당사자는 복수일 필요가 없고 1인의 대표당사자만 있어도 증권관련집단소송을 수행할 수 있는 점
- 법원은 총원의 범위를 조정하여 증권관련집단소송을 허가할 수 있는 점
- 대표당사자의 요건을 갖추지 못한 자를 제외하고
- 법 제3조(적용 범위)와 제12조(소송허가 요건)의 요건을 갖추었는지 여부
Unofficial English translation
• A representative party need not be plural, and a securities-related class action may be conducted with only one representative party
• The court may authorize a securities-related class action by adjusting the scope of the total membership
• excluding those who do not meet the requirements of a representative party
• whether the requirements of Article 3 (Scope of Application) and Article 12 (Requirements for Authorization of Action) of the Act have been met
Relation to precedent
States a new standard Read from the decision
대표당사자들 가운데 일부가 변경 신청된 총원 범위에 포함되지 않게 된 경우
Unofficial English translation
in the event that some of the representative parties are no longer included in the scope of the total membership for which a change has been requested
Decisions referred to
None listed
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
By what standard is it re-examined whether the representative parties remaining within the changed scope of the class may fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class?
If the provisions of the Securities-Related Class Action Act concerning the requirements for representative parties or the requirements for permission of the lawsuit are amended, this reading will be re-examined.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
6 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-16
Compared with an independent reading by another AI line (GPT-6 Astra), which read only the original text without seeing the primary reading, 6 of the 8 axes matched, and the readings diverged on axis 6 (Relation to precedent) and axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition).
Axis 6 (Relation to precedent): Primary “States a new standard” vs Independent “Cannot be determined”
If attention is paid to the fact that the original text specifically presented the method of examination to be followed when an unqualified representative party arises, it may be read as setting a new standard; but if attention is paid to the fact that it did not explicitly state its relation to earlier precedent, it may be read as cannot be determined.
대표당사자들 가운데 일부가 변경 신청된 총원 범위에 포함되지 않게 된 경우Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “By what standard is it re-examined whether the representative parties remaining within the changed scope of the class may fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class?” vs Independent “Where, after unqualified persons are excluded, no qualified representative party remains at all, must the court afford an opportunity for additional appointment?”
The primary reading asks by what standard the fair representativeness of the remaining representative parties is examined, whereas the independent reading asks whether an opportunity for additional appointment is to be afforded when no qualified person remains at all.
법원은 대표당사자의 요건을 갖추지 못한 자를 제외하고 증권관련집단소송의 소를 제기한 자 및 대표당사자가 되기를 원하여 신청서를 제출한 구성원 중 법에 정한 요건을 갖춘 자로서 대표당사자를 구성할 수 있는지 여부Raw 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 (Seoul High Court 2016Ra21279) held that, when the representative parties filed a motion to amend in the appeal proceedings narrowing the scope of the class to acquirers of corporate bonds of the 262nd through 268th series, Reappellant 3, who held 256th series corporate bonds, and Reappellant 4, who held 261st series corporate bonds, do not correspond to members and accordingly lack the qualification of representative parties. It held that this case, which included as representative parties two persons who could not be members, fails to satisfy the requirements of Article 11 of the Act, and that, without any need to examine further the requirements of Article 12, permission cannot be granted; it therefore dismissed the immediate appeal against a ruling.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court, relying on the points that a representative party may consist of a single person, and that the court appoints persons who satisfy the requirements as representative parties and may grant permission by adjusting the scope of the class, held that, so long as Reappellants 1, 2, 5 and other representative parties remain members, the lawsuit cannot be denied permission on the ground alone that two persons lack eligibility. It reversed and remanded the portion concerning defendant Yuanta Securities, and dismissed the reappeal of defendant Dongyang Co., Ltd., for which no grounds for reappeal were stated.
Distinguishing conditions
- Where not a single representative party remains within the changed scope of the class
- Where, even though representative parties remain, the requirements of the scope of application of Article 3 of the Act or the requirements for permission of the lawsuit under Article 12 are not satisfied
- At the merits stage, where the substantive requirements of the claim for damages, rather than the composition of representative parties, are disputed
Record verification notes
Before asserting the same conclusion, it needs to be confirmed whether the remaining representative parties actually acquired and hold the securities within the changed scope of the class, and whether they may fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.
From the official text
Points at issue
증권관련 집단소송법 제10조 제4항에 따라 법원이 대표당사자로 선임한 자가 대표당사자로서 요건을 갖추지 못한 사실이 밝혀지거나, 소송허가 절차에서 대표당사자들이 총원 범위 변경 신청을 하였고 대표당사자들 가운데 일부가 변경 신청된 총원 범위에 포함되지 않게 된 경우, 법원이 취하여야 할 조치
Unofficial English translation
The measures the court must take where the person appointed by the court as a representative party pursuant to Article 10, paragraph (4) of the Securities-Related Class Action Act turns out not to satisfy the requirements as a representative party, or where, in the procedure for authorization of the action, the representative parties filed an application to change the scope of the total membership and some of the representative parties are no longer included in the scope of the total membership as changed
Summary of the holding
증권관련집단소송의 소의 제기 및 허가 절차에 관한 증권관련 집단소송법(이하 ‘법’이라고 한다)의 각 규정 및 내용과 함께, 특히 ① 법 제2조 제1호에 의하면 대표당사자는 복수일 필요가 없고 1인의 대표당사자만 있어도 증권관련집단소송을 수행할 수 있는 점, ② 법 제10조 제4항에 의하면 법원이 법 제7조 제1항에 따라 소를 제기하는 자와 법 제10조 제1항 제4호에 따라 대표당사자가 되기를 원하여 신청서를 제출한 구성원 중 법에 정한 요건을 갖춘 자를 대표당사자로 선임할 수 있는 점, ③ 법 제15조 제3항에 의하면 법원은 총원의 범위를 조정하여 증권관련집단소송을 허가할 수 있는 점 등을 종합하여 살펴보면, 법 제10조 제4항에 따라 법원이 대표당사자로 선임한 자가 대표당사자로서 요건을 갖추지 못한 사실이 밝혀지거나, 소송허가 절차에서 대표당사자들이 총원 범위 변경 신청을 하였고 대표당사자들 가운데 일부가 변경 신청된 총원 범위에 포함되지 않게 된 경우, 법원은 대표당사자의 요건을 갖추지 못한 자를 제외하고 증권관련집단소송의 소를 제기한 자 및 대표당사자가 되기를 원하여 신청서를 제출한 구성원 중 법에 정한 요건을 갖춘 자로서 대표당사자를 구성할 수 있는지 여부 및 증권관련집단소송의 소송허가 신청이 법 제3조(적용 범위)와 제12조(소송허가 요건)의 요건을 갖추었는지 여부를 심리하여, 소송허가 신청이 위와 같은 요건을 갖추었다면 증권관련집단소송을 허가하여야 한다.
Order
원심결정 중 피고(상대방) 유안타증권 주식회사에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다. 나머지 재항고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The part of the order of the court below concerning the defendant (counterpart) Yuanta Securities Co., Ltd. is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The remainder of the re-appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
증권관련 집단소송법 제2조 제1호, 제2호, 제4호, 제3조, 제7조 제1항, 제10조 제1항, 제4항, 제11조 제1항, 제12조, 제15조 제1항, 제3항, 제21조 제1항
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