【Defendant B, each of the 5th, 20, 6th, 21, 6711, and 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “Defendant C”), “Defendant C,” each of the 5th, 22, 6th, and 3 through 6th, of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “Defendant C”), “Defendant C,” the part of the 6th, 5th, 6th, 3, and 6th, of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “Defendant C”), against the Defendant at the court of first instance and the appellate court, although the Defendant asserted the invalidation of disciplinary dismissal and brought a lawsuit to nullify dismissal, the appeal was dismissed on February 13, 2018 (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da275331).

[The grounds for recognition: entry of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7, 9 through 43, Eul's evidence No. 1, 8, Eul's evidence No. 1 through 13, witness U's testimony of the first instance court, and the purport of whole pleadings]

2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment is as stated in Paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except in the following cases:

【Defendant B, each of the 8th and 9th and 351120 of the 8th and 35120 of the 12th and 5th decisions of the first instance court, “Defendant B”

(c) In determining the scope of compensation for damages to financial institutions by any executive or employee of a financial institution in violation of the laws and regulations or the articles of incorporation or neglecting his duties, the scope of the compensation for damages shall be limited to the contents and nature of the business in question, the reasons why the executive or employee violated his duties and the manner of such violation, objective circumstances or degree involved in the occurrence and expansion of the damages to financial institutions, and to the financial institutions of ordinary executives or employees.