The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the evidence duly adopted, the lower court determined that: (a) under an agreement between R and an unspecified number of investors from March 2007 to June 2008 on the condition that “the Plaintiff shall receive investment money and make investments in securities, funds, etc.; (b) shall guarantee the principal of the investment; and (c) shall receive approximately KRW 400 billion from such investors; (d) the Defendants entered into an investment profit agreement with R with the said investors; and (c) the Defendants shall have received money exceeding the principal amount of the investment; (c) even though R paid 800 investors including the Defendants, the Defendants did not return the principal amount of the investment from other investors; and as a result, the Defendants did not receive excess of 12 years’ imprisonment due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) and the Regulation on Unauthorized Receipt of Income, etc.; and (e) the Defendants did not have any excessive profits arising from the agreement between R and the Defendants on June 23, 2009.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

“Unfair juristic act” under Article 104 of the Civil Act is established when there exists a significant imbalance between benefit and benefit in return, and such a imbalance is established when a transaction which has lost balance took place through the use of flag, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party. The purpose is to regulate blaging by using flaging, rashness, or inexperience of the victimized party.

However, the court below held.