Decisions

All

TITLE	[Redemption Monies]Supreme Court Decision 2008Da13043 Decided October 14, 2010 [full Text]
Summary
[1] Whether Article 7 and Article 30 of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, which stipulate the obligation of a company selling beneficiary certificates to perform redemption with its inherent property, is unconstitutional (negative) [2] Whether Article 2 of the Addenda (Sep. 16, 1998) to the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, which stipulates the date to apply the amended provisions for redemption of beneficiary certificates, is unconstitutional by violating the principle of clarity or infringing on essential aspects of property rights (negative) [3] When postponing redemption according to the proviso to Article 7 (4) of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, whether the company selling beneficiary certificates is obligated to take active measures such as publicly notifying or announcing the redemption postponement to all beneficiaries (negative), and whether approval from the Financial Services Commission is required to establish validity of the above redemption postponement (negative)

TITLE

[Redemption Monies]Supreme Court Decision 2008Da13043 Decided October 14, 2010 [full Text]

Summary

[1] Whether Article 7 and Article 30 of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, which stipulate the obligation of a company selling beneficiary certificates to perform redemption with its inherent property, is unconstitutional (negative) [2] Whether Article 2 of the Addenda (Sep. 16, 1998) to the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, which stipulates the date to apply the amended provisions for redemption of beneficiary certificates, is unconstitutional by violating the principle of clarity or infringing on essential aspects of property rights (negative) [3] When postponing redemption according to the proviso to Article 7 (4) of the former Securities Investment Trust Business Act, whether the company selling beneficiary certificates is obligated to take active measures such as publicly notifying or announcing the redemption postponement to all beneficiaries (negative), and whether approval from the Financial Services Commission is required to establish validity of the above redemption postponement (negative)

Prev	Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3162 Decided October 14, 2010 [Damages (Medical Liability)]
Next	Supreme Court Decision 2010Do387 Decided October 14, 2010 [Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment... Violation of the Punishment of Tax Evaders Act, Offer of Bribe]

list