1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the preliminary claims added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of "the judgment on the conjunctive claim" as to the plaintiffs' conjunctive claim in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiffs' assertion ① concluded the instant investment contract by deception on the financing of the power plant business funds and the current business status of the Defendants, which constitutes a declaration of intent by fraud.

② In addition, the Defendants provided all the property necessary for the Defendant Company’s business, including the name of permission and power plant, to the general meeting of shareholders, or to notify the Plaintiffs, as collateral, to Solarg Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Solarg”), a third party. In substance, the Defendant Company satisfied its loans and is not likely to recover the collateral, and thus, the instant investment contract concluded to create profits through the power plant business became impossible due to the Defendants’ fault.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to cancel or rescind the instant investment contract through the instant application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of December 26, 2017, and the said declaration of intent was served on the Defendants around that time, and the instant investment contract was cancelled or rescinded.

Therefore, the Defendants are obligated to return the investment amount paid by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants and the statutory interest thereon, as the restitution following the cancellation or cancellation of the instant investment contract.

B. As seen earlier, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs regarding the revocation of the judgment 1st fraud is sufficient to recognize that the Defendants made an investment contract with the Plaintiffs and made a deception as alleged by the Plaintiffs in the course of receiving investments from the Plaintiffs.