Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the sum of the agreed amount and the proceeds KRW 140 million.

Defendant 1 did not agree to the effect that the Defendant would repay 70 million won to the Plaintiff.

(2) Even if such an agreement was concluded, such agreement shall be deemed an agreement to return the proceeds of investment, and thus, it shall be presumed that the proceeds have accrued, but the Plaintiff cannot claim the proceeds.

③ The revenue is specified as the revenue.

Even if the legal nature of the loan is regarded as the interest of the loan, the above part of the claim should be limited under the Interest Limitation Act, or null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Since the relevant legal principles are applied only to a monetary loan contract, the interest limitation law does not apply to a contract under which one of the parties receives an investment return from the other party and pay an investment return.

Here, whether a contract to transfer ownership of money and pay a certain price or a profit to the other party is a monetary loan to which the Interest Limitation Act applies, or an investment contract not subject to the Interest Limitation Act (in accordance with the specific contents of a contract, it constitutes a partnership agreement under the Civil Act, an anonymous partnership agreement under the Commercial Act, or an undisclosed association agreement under the Commercial Act), as well as the name of the contract in question, whether the payment or profit is fixed, whether the principal is guaranteed, the substantial structure of the contract such as the specific contents of the use of the principal, whether the lender or the investor is involved in the business, and whether it is before