신용평가회사의 손해배상 책임에 대한 상당한 주의의무 항변

The Due Diligence Defence against the Liability of the Credit Rating Agency

The FINANCIAL INVESTMENT SERVICES AND CAPITAL MARKETS ACT seeks to address information inequality between issuers and investors through registration statement when securities are issued. In order to ensure the adequacy of the contents, the acquirer of a securities shall be held responsible for any damages caused by a false description or representation or omission of any material fact. The person responsible for compensation is exempt from the responsibility if he or she has paid due diligence. However, it is inevitable to rely on the interpretation theory because it does not provide material grounds for applying these laws, such as material fact and due diligence. This structure has its origins in the Securities Act of 1933, which may help the case in the United States. However, the U.S. has few precedents. The main precedent shows that due diligence defense is developing around two criteria: the reasonable investigation standard and the reasonable reliance standard. Our country doesn t have as many precedents as the U.S. In matters involving credit rating agencies, the court has exempted credit rating agencies if they trust the audit report if the audit report does not have any red flag as prepared by experts. However, given the nature and status of the credit rating agency, it needs to be widely acknowledged as a red flag.