The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. The lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and based on the premise that each of the instant investment agreements was genuinely prepared, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a monetary loan agreement and an investment contract in which the Plaintiff provided funds and guaranteed investment returns in each of the Defendants’ sales agency business on August 21, 2009, as the Plaintiff entered into a mixed contract with the money loan agreement and the investment contract, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the interest and delayed payment within the scope of the interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act, the profits, and the delayed payment damages.

In addition, on the premise that the agreement of this case and the promissory note were duly prepared along with each of the instant investment agreements, the lower court determined that the Defendants’ partial amount of money repaid by the Defendants remains liable for the payment of the Defendants’ aforementioned monetary liabilities, separate investment principal and revenue, loans, interest thereon, and damages for delay in accordance with the order of statutory appropriation for payment. After the commission of appropriation, the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the investment income of KRW 1 billion and damages for delay in accordance with the agreement of August 21, 2009.

2. In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to commercial law regarding the dividend, contract with condition precedent, interest limitation law, and appropriation of performance, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules

However, the lower court recognized the rate of damages for delay on the investment principal under the agreement on August 21, 2009 as 48% per annum pursuant to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and it is reasonable to view that the rate of damages for delay is the same as the interest before the due date.