2014년 자본시장법 판례의 회고와 전망

From late 2013 to late 2014, many cases in the Financial Investment Services and Capital Market Act(hereinafter “the Act”) and the repealed Indirect Investment Asset Management Business Act have been produced. Some judgements of the Supreme Court's cases are as follows : the principle of suitability and the duty of explain does not apply to a quasi-investment advisory business; members of an employee stock ownership association have not a preferential right to the allocation of bonds of warrants; use of DMA in connection with ELW trading does not come under the utilizing an unfair means. The Act provides that an investor may make a claim for redemption of collective investment securities at any time. In the event that a collective investment business entity of an investment trust, etc. is unable to redeem collective investment securities on the day prescribed by the collective investment agreement, owing to impossibility of disposing of assets that belong to the collective investment property or any other cause prescribed by Presidential Decree, it may postpone the redemption of the collective investment securities. The Supreme Court has clarified the definition of "where it is anticipated that accepting a claim for redemption in a large volume are likely to undermine equality in dealing with investors" prescribed by Presidential Decree as a ground for the postponement of redemption.