The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief filed).

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) submitted a repayment plan on April 29, 2013 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”); (b) provided performance of its obligations under the instant Investment Agreement; and (c) was responsible for the Plaintiff’s refusal of credit extension for 100% of investment funds; and (d) the instant investment agreement was lawfully terminated by the Defendant’s declaration of termination on May 23, 2013, on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of the obligation to refinancing the investment funds and the destruction of trust relationship; and accordingly, (c) the Defendant had the obligation to return the actual expenses paid by the Defendant for two years from the instant fee paid to the Plaintiff and the amount exceeding the reasonable amount of remuneration during the said period.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal principles as to termination of contract, interpretation of disposal documents, financial real name, business structure and relationship between the parties, legal nature of the instant fee, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to judicial confession, inconsistent reasoning or logical and empirical rules, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 6, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s rejection of performance on the ground of the Plaintiff’s rejection.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding termination of a contract, or by omitting judgment as to rejection of performance, and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.