As regards the case of D Bank’s KSOPI300 price manipulation on the expiration date for stock options (“Option Shock Case”), DR & AJU represented victims who significantly suffered from the price manipulation in a damages suit against D Bank and secured a partial favorable judgment for damages.

Subsequent to the above judgment, the investors filed another suit for additional damages 5 years later after the occurrence of the Option Shock Case. In that later suit, the D Bank argued they did not have the liability for damages because the statute of limitation had expired upon the lapse of 3 years from the date the illegal act of D Bank was known, which was the issue of the suit.

Concerning the issue of statute of limitation, the trial court rejected the D Bank’s counterargument, whereas the appellate court assented to it. DR & AJU argued that the D Bank’s counterargument was wrong upon the close investigation and research of precedents, legal journals, and overseas cases. The Supreme Court finally remanded the decision of the appellate court by rejecting the D Bank’s counterargument.

In the decision, the Supreme Court held on the grounds as follows: (i) Even if there were actions by the Financial Services Commission or the prosecution, it was difficult to predicate that individual investors knew all the related details; (ii) As expertise is required to determine illegality of the price manipulation, it was difficult to predicate that ordinary people acknowledged illegality or proximate causation of the price manipulation before a decision is rendered in the relevant criminal case; and (iii) As D Bank was exempted from the sanction by the Financial Services Commission or the being prosecuted, it was difficult to predicate that the investors knew the relevance of D Bank to the criminal act.

In finance cases, the short-term statute of limitation of an illegal act frequently becomes an issue. In that sense, this case is of significance for providing a detailed standard as to “the date illegal act is known.”