All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 490,000,000 as investments in accordance with the instant trade agreement.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by violating logical and empirical rules and by exceeding the bounds

2. The illegal cause as stipulated in Article 746 of the Civil Act for the reason that the claim for return of unjust enrichment is prohibited refers to the cause where the act causing it violates good morals and other social order, and even if the act does not violate the prohibition of law, it does not constitute a case where it does not violate good morals and other social order.

(1) The court below held that the Plaintiff’s act of payment of investment did not constitute illegal consideration, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act of payment of investment did not constitute illegal consideration, even if there was an anti-social element under the instant business agreement, even if there was an anti-social element under the instant business agreement, and that the act of causing such an act was extremely serious to the extent that the anti-social element violates good morals and other social order.

In light of the above legal principles and the records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles

3. As to the repayment of bad faith, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the instant trade agreement was null and void at the time of the payment of investment to the Defendants, and that it was not obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s investment.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, it violates logical and empirical rules and exceeds the bounds of free evaluation of evidence.