1. As to the assertion that the instant agreement on compensation for losses is null and void

According to Articles 12(5) and 8(1)4 of the Support for Small and Medium Enterprise Establishment Act (hereinafter “Act”) and Article 9(4)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, an executive member of a start-up investment association (hereinafter “association”) shall not conduct any transaction with a specially related person or major investor (hereinafter “specially related person, etc.”). As such, the purpose of prohibiting transaction with a specially related person, etc. is to prevent an association from arbitrarily selecting a person subject to investment and indirectly securing investment soundness and, at the same time, provide various special assistance and benefits to the association in order to achieve the legislative purpose of promoting the establishment of a small and medium enterprise and establishing a foundation for growth. However, the act of trading with a specially related person, etc. in violation of the above prohibition cannot be deemed unlawful to the extent that it can not be denied even if it does not deny the legal effect of the act, and the other party’s claim for the return of investment funds can only be viewed as violating the purpose of the above investment agreement and the other party’s claim for the return of investment funds.

In light of the above legal principles and records, on the ground that the investment contract of this case is null and void, and thus, the conclusion of the court below rejecting the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendant did not bear an obligation to return investment money under the investment contract of this case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal. In addition, the assertion that the agreement for compensation for losses of this case is null and void as an unfair trade practice using the superior position as an investor is newly asserted at the time of the final appeal, and thus, it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, and there is no other reason to prove that the agreement for compensation

2. As to the assertion that the instant agreement for compensating for losses is a contract subject to a condition precedent and that the fulfillment period of the obligation to return has not yet arrived

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below is just in rejecting the defendants' assertion that the agreement to compensate for losses of this case was based on the evidence of its adopted evidence, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the completion of an an animation 26th production project was a condition precedent, or even if three years have passed since the investment was conducted, the period during which the agreement to compensate for losses of this case was not due, and there was no violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the rules

3. As to the allegation of offset

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below was justified in finding facts based on the adopted evidence, and rejected all of the defendants' counterclaims based on the premise that the management entity of the invested principal bears the duty to inspect the account in the name of the non-party corporation or the duty to manage the account in the name of the non-party corporation. There is no violation of the rules

4. As to the assertion that there was an error in the incomplete hearing

In light of the records, since the defendants can be identified that there had already been the plaintiff's answer prior to the plaintiff's explanation request, it cannot be deemed that there was any error in the court below's failure to request a separate explanation from the plaintiff. The right to offset under the Civil Act has the right to exercise the right unless there is a special agreement between the other party and the other party. Therefore, in this case, the plaintiff has no obligation to extinguish the right to return the investment deposit based on the compensation agreement of this case against the non-party corporation as a member of the plaintiff as a set-off against the residual property claim that will be held at the time of future liquidation of the plaintiff. Thus, in relation to the plaintiff's assertion on the premise that the right to offset exists, it is not necessary to examine whether the non-party corporation had a claim to receive the distribution from the plaintiff as residual property in the event of the plaintiff's dissolution and liquidation, and it is not necessary to examine whether the non-party corporation has a management obligation to the account in the name of the non-party corporation as seen above. Therefore, the court below cannot accept all necessary evidence examination as to prove the details of the above investigation request.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)