1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims filed by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding the instant case is as follows, and this court’s supplementary selective claims are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except as otherwise determined in paragraph (2). Thus, this case’s supplementary selective claims are cited in accordance with the main sentence of

(A) In full view of the allegations by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the first instance judgment is reasonable). On the 5th sentence of the first instance judgment, the “300 million won” in the 12th sentence is amended to “300,000,100 won.”

The 6th sentence of the first instance judgment " September 30, 2016" shall be amended to " November 1, 2016" in the 13th sentence.

On the 7th page of the first instance judgment, the term "a description of the plaintiff" in the 4th page shall be amended to "the defendant's explanation".

2. Determination on selective claims

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The investment proposal prepared and delivered by the Defendant, upon soliciting the Plaintiff to make an investment, explains the instant claim as the subject of “Initial Investment” and stated that the instant claim is not limited to the instant claim but the additional overseas resources development investment is expected to be made in relation to the instant fund. There is no particular explanation about the period between the maturity date of the instant claim and the expiration date of the term of the instant fund.

B) However, according to the Defendant’s assertion, since the Fund was premised on investing only in the instant claim from the beginning, additional overseas resources development investment after the maturity of the instant claim was not considered from the beginning. Since November 1, 2016, the maturity date of the instant claim was limited to five months from March 31, 2017, which was the expiration date of the instant claim, and the settlement of accounts, etc. related to the instant claim, were planned. C) Accordingly, this is because the Defendant, who is a director of the instant fund, prepared the investment prospectus, made a false statement or made a false statement on important matters.