1. The plaintiff's primary claim that is changed in exchange in this court is dismissed.

2. The defendant's appeal.

1. As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons to be stated by this court are as follows, in addition to the entry or addition of the Plaintiff and the Defendant in accordance with the allegations complementary to the trial of the court of first instance, the entry in the column of reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the entry in

The five-one to two types of judgments of the court of first instance shall be described as follows:

“1) As a result of the instant stock investment agreement, the balance of the modern securities account as of November 16, 2006 was KRW 69,000,500 as of November 16, 2006, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 69,000,000 among them.

The evidence No. 21-1 reveals that 500 won out of the balance of 69,00,500 won was paid as remittance fee.

"No. 21-1" shall be added to "No. 21-1" following the 5th 11th 11 written judgment of the court of first instance. "No. 5th 14th 10th 4th 10th 0th 10 written judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows:

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant around July 20, 2007, around 324,902,027 won (hereinafter “amount of loss of the invested principal of this case”) incurred by the investment principal due to the instant 1 and 2 stock investments.

Since the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of loss of the said invested principal, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of loss. 2) The Defendant agreed to pay the amount of loss of the said invested principal jointly and severally with C at the time of preparing the instant payment note. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of loss of the said invested principal to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff to determine the primary claim and on July 20, 2007, the settlement of the investment principal due to the instant 1 and 2 share investments was finally made and the amount of loss of the investment principal due to the instant 1 and 2 share investments was finally determined, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the amount of loss of the said investment principal on July 20, 207, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff.