The judgment below

Among them, the part against the defendant as to the primary claim and the ancillary claim corresponding to that part.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The Plaintiff asserted that each of the instant investment contracts was concluded by the Defendant’s deception by its primary claim, and that the Plaintiff lawfully revoked it, and sought a return of KRW 400 million out of the investment amount of KRW 2.32 billion as part of restitution.

2. The court below found the defendant guilty (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2017Rahap274) of the facts charged that the defendant deceivings the plaintiff and fraudulently obtained KRW 2.316 million from the plaintiff (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2017Mohap274). The defendant, as stated in its reasoning, had established the entertainment planning company C (hereinafter referred to as "C") with the money borrowed from the plaintiff, and had no certain operating funds, and even if the group "D" did not have any investment money in Japan and there was no specific plan for entry into Japan, it did not have the intent to use the money only for "D", and even if the defendant did not have the intent or ability to distribute the profit or return the investment money to the plaintiff as agreed upon in each of the investment contracts in this case, the court below acknowledged the defendant's investment contract in this case from around 16, 2014 to around 301, 2015 to 2015 after concluding the investment contract in this case.

Furthermore, the lower court determined that each of the instant investment contracts was lawfully revoked according to the Plaintiff’s intent of revocation on the grounds of deception by the Defendant.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above recognition and determination by the court below for the following reasons.

record.