1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it is cited for this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and below the main points that the defendant repeats

The decision on the argument is added.

The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the total amount of KRW 352,300,000 of this money and damages for delay, as of September 20, 2013, since the principal that he/she has invested and did not return to the Plaintiff is KRW 217,00,000,000,000 investment income and KRW 135,30,000,000,000.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the interim settlement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was made as alleged in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was appropriately admitted by the Defendant as of September 30, 2013 (Evidence No. 1) or on the settlement of accounts on a photographic photo (Evidence No. 3-1, 2013-2) presented by the Defendant to the Plaintiff as of September 30, 2013, or on October 7, 2013. In light of the evidence No. 5, 6, and 7, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot specify the Plaintiff and the date and amount of the invested principal or the leased principal that the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff, even if using the term "investment deposit" as of September 30, 2013, if it was agreed to pay at a fixed rate of 7% per month for the principal regardless of success or profit of the investment project as of October 7, 2013, it is sufficient to deem such money transaction to be a typical loan for consumption.

The loan principal can be appropriated to the principal in excess of the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act as an interest on the loan for consumption of money without its title, and the leased principal itself can be specified.