2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1) The Defendant is a community credit cooperative C (hereinafter “instant safe”) from March 18, 1998 to April 21, 2004.

(2) The Plaintiff was in the office of non-standing chief director of the instant credit cooperative from April 1, 1999 to June 15, 2006, and was paid only KRW 30,000 per day from 1998 to 2000, and KRW 60,000 per day from 201 to 2002, and KRW 120,000 per day from 203 to 200.2) The Plaintiff was in the office of managing director of the instant credit cooperative from April 1, 199 to 15, 206.

3) From March 1998 to May 16, 2004, D was the chief director of the instant credit cooperative from March 1998 to May 16, 2004, E was employed as a daily employee of the instant credit cooperative and served as a regular employee from July 1, 1999 to October 20, 206. (1) The Plaintiffs, the Defendant, D, and E, while working in the instant credit cooperative, were unfairly terminated and cancelled the right to collateral security, disposed of the loan claims against F, and was charged with a crime that violated the credit limit provision for the same person.

2) The plaintiff and the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff in violation of the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation) and the Act on the Punishment of Specific Economic Crimes (Misappropriation of 2008No1585 delivered on September 26, 2008), and the Act on the Prevention of Community Credit Cooperatives with 1 year and six years of suspension of execution (the suspension of execution was sentenced on October 25, 2005), the appellate court (Seoul High Court Decision 2005No2497 delivered on July 6, 2006), the appellate court (the Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4876 delivered on June 19, 2008), the appellate court after reversal and transmission (the Court Decision 2008No1585 delivered on September 26, 2008), and the defendant filed a lawsuit against the same person in violation of the provision on the loan limit of this case on the grounds that the plaintiff, the defendant and the Eul, and E were unfairly discharged and claimed damages against the same person for bad debt.

2) The first instance court (Seoul District Court Decision 2009Kahap13739 decided October 7, 2010) and the appellate court (Seoul High Court).