All appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

All of the plaintiffs' preliminary claims filed in this Court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the conjunctive claims added by the plaintiffs in this court, and thus, it can be cited as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ conjunctive cause was that Plaintiff A entered into a partnership agreement with D, and D did not pay an investment amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, and Plaintiff A agreed that D would pay its obligation on behalf of the Plaintiff, and D would pay its insurance premium on behalf of the Plaintiff. As such, D’s preserved claim and preservation is necessary, Plaintiff A’s right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment on behalf of the Defendant due to the invalidity of the instant insurance contract.

B. The Defendant’s vicarious exercise of the right to defense prior to the merits is unlawful as it is not necessary to preserve the preserved claim and its preservation.

C. However, even based on the plaintiffs' assertion itself, it appears to the purport that there is no claim against plaintiff B's D.

Furthermore, with respect to Plaintiff A’s claim against this Court, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of the claim solely by the descriptions of Plaintiff A’s Nos. 11 through 13 (including paper numbers) submitted by the Plaintiffs in this Court, and there is no other evidence to support that Plaintiff A has the claim against Plaintiff A.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge D's insolvency, and there is no evidence to prove that D agreed to repay debts by the method of paying premiums on behalf of the plaintiffs, and there is no evidence to prove that D agreed to pay debts on behalf of the plaintiffs, and there is no circumstance to mitigate the requirements of debtor's insolvency in the creditor's subrogation right.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of the above preliminary claim by subrogation of D is unlawful because the existence of the preserved claim and the need for preservation are not recognized.

In addition, as judged in the primary claim, the parties to the instant insurance contract are the Plaintiffs.