1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 24, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. The Plaintiff, in its trade name, invested KRW 1.5 million from May 1, 2014 at the Defendant’s place of business that runs the mechanical drawing business, and invested KRW 40 million in the Defendant’s place of business that runs the mechanical drawing business. If the Plaintiff invests KRW 40 million during two years, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to be guaranteed KRW 80 million during two years (hereinafter “instant agreement”); KRW 30 million on May 22, 2014; KRW 10 million on August 19, 2014; and KRW 40 million in total.

Since June 2014, the Plaintiff terminated the instant agreement by serving the instant complaint, as the Plaintiff’s proceeds, excluding other nominal amounts, such as benefits, out of the amount paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, do not exceed the amount of proceeds under the instant agreement.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 3-1, Gap evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff sought the return of the invested principal KRW 40 million on the ground of the termination of the contract in this case, and that the defendant does not guarantee the return of the invested principal, but has guaranteed the plaintiff's profit equivalent to twice the investment amount until the expiration of the two-year contract period under the premise that the plaintiff conducts painting business for two years, not by guaranteeing the return of the invested principal.

There is no evidence to deem that the instant agreement is premised on the Plaintiff’s performance of painting business for two years (the agreement with the Defendant and D on March 13, 2014 does not have an agreement on the terms and conditions of payment of earnings). Even if the agreement was not specified in the instant agreement, it is reasonable to interpret that the agreement constitutes only the amount exceeding the Plaintiff’s investment principal out of the amount guaranteed by the Defendant’s payment, and that the remainder amount is the investment principal. Therefore, the Defendant is deemed to have guaranteed the Plaintiff to pay KRW 40 million of the investment principal and KRW 40 million of the investment income in accordance with the instant agreement.

However, the Plaintiff did not pay the proceeds under the instant agreement properly, and the Plaintiff did not enter into the instant agreement.