The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the admission of confession, the exercise of the right to explanation, the incomplete hearing, etc. (ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

A. For the following reasons, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the return of the investment deposit and rejected the Defendant’s assertion as to the repayment defense.

(1) On October 20, 201, the Plaintiff agreed to invest KRW 200 million with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and KRW 200 million and agreed to receive refund KRW 2.8 million each month from January 201 to December 2017.

Since then, the defendant who merged C is obligated to return the investment amount of KRW 200 million to the plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement.

However, as to the Plaintiff’s claim for return of investment amount of KRW 28 million incurred before October 2012, the extinctive prescription has expired before the instant lawsuit was filed, the Defendant’s investment amount is KRW 172 million.

(2) The Defendant asserts that C returned KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, and that D, the representative director of C, made an investment agreement by abusing his/her power of representation, and the Plaintiff also knew of such abuse of power of representation, thus the investment agreement is null and void. If the Defendant lost in the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages under Article 401 of the Commercial Act, and thus, the Defendant’s damage claim against the Defendant is set off against the Plaintiff’s right

However, C repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 100 million under the pretext that part of the investment amount is repaid to the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement or D by abusing its power of representation, and that the Plaintiff knew of such circumstances. Thus, it is difficult to deem that liability for damages under Article 401 of the Commercial Act is established, and it cannot be offset against future claims by automatic claims. Therefore, the above argument cannot be accepted.

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court’s judgment on the establishment of a claim for investment deposit, abuse of power of representation, or set-off of repayment goes against logical and empirical rules.