1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as follows, except for the court’s determination as to the conjunctive claim relating to the additional investment agreement, and thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s conjunctive cause of claim ① Even if the Plaintiff’s money paid to the Defendants is not a loan, the Defendants agreed to guarantee the Plaintiff’s principal of investment.

Therefore, according to the above agreement, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining KRW 53,310,239,000 after deducting the amount returned by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff’s investment

② The Defendants breached the duty of disclosure and the duty of distributing profits under the investment agreement entered into with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff cancels the said investment agreement.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to return the difference in the invested principal to the Plaintiff in KRW 53,310,239.

③ The Plaintiff and the Defendants shared the full amount of the investment related to the investment business, and accordingly, the Defendants derived more than KRW 17 million without any legal cause (the proceeds that were returned to the Plaintiff) and thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the amount of KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff due to the cause of return of unjust enrichment.

④ Since the Plaintiff demanded the Defendants to return the investment amount from the partnership relationship under the investment agreement around April 2016, the Defendants are jointly and severally obligated to pay the settlement amount according to their share ratio among the partnership property.

B. Determination 1 as to the claim against Defendant B on the principal guarantee agreement (i) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B agreed to guarantee the principal of the investment with respect to the money that Defendant B received from the Plaintiff, and that is different.