시세조종행위에 따른 손해배상의 소멸시효 기산점 - 대법원 2018. 7. 24 선고 2018다215664 판결 -

Many lawsuits related to the option shock occurred on 11th November 2010 were filed, and the defendant's guilty and damages liability was recognized in most defendant cases. In the subject judgment of this article, Plaintiffs, who are general investors, filed a claim for damages due to market manipulation acts after approximately 5 years and 2 months from the date of the incident. Defendant alleged that the extinctive prescription of damages liability was completed. At the first instance, the plaintiff, a general investor, declared that the annihilation prescription was not completed because there was a de facto obstacle to recognition of illegality. On the other hand, at the 2nd trial, the outline of the case of the option shock is already widely known, and even if the manuscript is a general investor, in light of the investment experience, etc., unlike professional investors, seeing There is no need, and I approve the completion of the annihilation prescription. However, the Supreme Court denied the completion of the annihilation prescription by admitting that the illegality judgment of the option shock case was very complicated and that plaintiffs of general investors had difficulty in knowing this, Destroyed back. This brought the effect of prolonging the period of raising the actions of general investors as a judgment, which also allowed the classification between general investors and professional investors based on specific cases at the stage of post-aid relief. In this article, we will summarize the matters related to the extinctive prescription of compensation for damages due to market maneuvering, centered on this Supreme Court ruling.