1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to the money that orders payment below.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts are as follows: “The Defendants filed a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff on the charge of fraud. However, the prosecutor of the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office in the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office, on April 30, 2014, issued a non-prosecution disposition against the Plaintiff on the charge of the Plaintiff on the charge of fraud.” The “Evidence No. 44” was added to the grounds for recognition. On the other hand, except that the “transfer” of Part 2, No. 19 and No. 3 is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance except that the “transfer” of Part 2, No. 19 and No. 3 is the same as the “delivery,” respectively, under the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. According to the factual basis prior to the determination of the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are liable to pay the amount calculated by applying each ratio of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from February 9, 2013 to the date of delivery of a penalty of 150,000,000 as stipulated in the contract of this case and a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, and from February 6, 2013 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of full payment, and from February 6, 2013 to the date of the decision of this case, it is reasonable to dispute as to the existence and scope of each of the Defendants’ obligations. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the penalty of this case and damages for delay to the penalty of this case to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion: ① the parties to the instant contract are Plaintiff D and the Defendants are merely investors against D, and the Defendants are merely parties to the instant contract.