2025년 금융법 중요판례평석

In 2025, various financial law precedents were sentenced by the Supreme Court. A total of 17 Supreme Court precedents covered in this 2025 financial law case study include important academic rulings such as the scope of major report. Introducing only the contents of the main judgment is as follows. (1) In the event of a rapid price fluctuation in the market, counter-trading by a financial investment broker in accordance with the terms and conditions cannot be regarded as a discretionary trading prohibited by the Capital Markets Act. However, in order to protect investors in the case of counter-trading, the financial investment broker bears a certain duty of care. (2) Business executives of private equity firms are obligated to protect investors not only before they become limited liability employees by participating in investment recommendations, but also after they become limited liability employees, and in case of violating this, they are liable for damages due to illegal activities. I agree with the conclusion on this, but I think that as long as they have become limited liability members, it should be considered to be liable under the contract. (3) The meaning of ‘lawsuit on securities’ in major business reports should be interpreted narrowly. There is an opinion that it should be interpreted broadly for investor protection, but for the text and harmonious interpretation of the current capital market law, it must be interpreted as a lawsuit related to securities. (4) The interpretation of “agent” is a problem with respect to insiders who are the subject of undisclosed material information use, and it is not limited to civil law agents who must receive the right of legal representation from the relevant corporation to express their intentions for the corporation and directly generate the effect to the corporation. (5) There is a possibility of financial transactions due to price differences between virtual assets listed in various countries. As a result, various types of violations such as foreign exchange transaction laws have occurred, and the Supreme Court is actively applying the laws and regulations from a substantive standpoint. However, it is necessary to consider whether or not to maintain the foreign exchange transaction laws in the long run.