1. All appeals by the Defendants against the Plaintiff are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the first instance court's judgment is the same as that of the first instance court's judgment in addition to supplementing the first instance court's judgment as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

① The “real estate of the E golf course (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”)” in the third 8 to 9 of the judgment of the first instance court shall be incorporated into “real estate of the E golf course (each real estate listed in the attached list; hereinafter “each real estate of this case”)”.

(2) Five below the 8th judgment of the first instance court shall be subject to the 5th sentence with " February 17, 2018" " February 27, 2018."

2. Supplement of judgment

A. 1) The substance of an investment contract that is distinguishable from a monetary loan agreement of this case is deemed to be an uncertainty of the occurrence of profits from the investment project or a risk of recovery of investment proceeds therefrom. In determining whether the money received pursuant to an agreement between the parties is a loan or an investment risk, such uncertainty or risk shall be considered as the principal element in the interpretation of the parties’ intent. In full view of the factors to be considered in the interpretation of the parties’ intent, whether the principal and the amount are guaranteed, the relationship between the principal and the profits accrued from the investment, the course of payment of the money, and the motive for the payment of the money (see, e.g., Busan High Court Decision 2018Na5689, Jul. 11, 2019).

The Supreme Court has invested money in any project.