1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted to this court is presented, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified

Therefore, the reasoning of this court’s reasoning is that the Plaintiff is the 4th page 14 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the following is added to “D, not the Defendant, is the substantial party to the agreement based on each of the instant agreements,” and the Defendant’s new argument is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment, which is identical to that of the following Paragraph 2, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion, even if the agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the basis of each of the instant agreements, is not an investment agreement, but a monetary loan agreement, in light of the language and text, such as “loan” or “payment,” under each of the instant agreements, and thus, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff and receive KRW 100 million including interest KRW 40 million, and the part exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act should be null and void.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that each of the instant agreements contains the same language as “vehicle use” or “payment” is included.

However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments, evidence Nos. 1-1 and 9-5 of the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 9-5, each of the instant statements also contain the same language as “investment funds” or “collection of investment funds,” and set the time for return on the basis of “the time when the export and import of the Defendant was changed”, ② There is no indication in the interest rate or the time for payment of interest, etc., and ③ the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in relation to each of the instant statements with the investigative agency at the time of the investigation.