1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary claim and conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

The reasoning for this case is that the court of the first instance, which accepted the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for further or additional deletion as follows.

The 3th through 4th of the first instance court's decision shall be deleted, and the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 4th of the 2th of the 4th of the 4th of the 2th of the 4th

The "Witness" in the 4th sentence of the first instance court shall be the "Witness of the first instance court".

In the fourth 10th of the decision of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff" shall be added in front of "the plaintiff" and the following shall be added between the first 16th and the first 17th of the same page:

Preliminaryly, the Plaintiff decided to invest with the Defendant in the instant C business around August 2004, and paid the Defendant KRW 1,000,000,000 on September 6, 2004. The Defendant contributed KRW 500,000,000,000 for each of the contributions of KRW 1,60,000,000.

However, the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant C business around the second half of 2006 because it did not use the investment funds received from the Plaintiff on the premise of investment for its intended purpose, and the Defendant returned to D the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000, which is the half of the investment funds, respectively.

Meanwhile, the Defendant, at the time of the repayment of the above investment deposit, again agreed to make an investment in the balance of the investment deposit and to leave the profit therefrom. However, the above E was finally impossible on June 2013.

Therefore, upon the termination of an investment contract, the Defendant must return the Plaintiff’s balance of KRW 500,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

Although the defendant requested only the return of the expenses that the plaintiff paid upon delegation from the court of first instance, the court of first instance recognized the obligation to return the investment money that is not included in the plaintiff's assertion, which is contrary to the principle of disposition. However, the plaintiff did not have the right to disposition.