Generally, after the M&A deal has been described, the stock purchase agreement plunges into the issuer's representations and warranties, one of the longest sections in M&A agreement. The existence of the representation and warranties clauses make it plain, if the question as to the financial statements made by the seller were ever in doubt, that the purchaser were relying on the accuracy of the statements and all the ancillary parties engaged in preparing the purchase agreement are, or should be, aware of such reliance. For this reason, the representations and warranty clauses indicate the function as a risk allocation device. The clauses are also functioned as a device to draw into a lawsuit for indemnification. The resultant loss is the responsibility of the warranting party even though the representation was not, at least consciously, untrue. However it's not clear whether the issue of scienter - a claim by the issuer that it did not know of the critical omission - could be also avoided by explicit warranties. This article examines the fundamental function and roles of the representation and warranty clauses by reviewing the case rendered on Jan. 24, 2007 in Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 2007. 1. 24. 2006Na11182). To review the meaning of the clauses in Korean judicial system, this article is organized in four parts. Part Ⅰ provides the importance of the clauses and overview the general legal issues which will be raised in next sections. Part Ⅱ described the general description of the Case. Part Ⅲ examines the functions and roles of the clauses in M&A transactions in the meaning of Korean laws, especially whether the nature of the clauses are warranty (Hajadambo) or simple default on an obligation (Chamubulihang). Part Ⅳ provides the comprehensive analysis to the case and the direction for the prospective of the clauses in Korea.