A. The Plaintiff was employed as a temporary employee of the Defendant around January 1982 and was appointed as a regular employee around January 1986. Since January 2008, the head of the management division was working.

The defendant is a cooperative established with the aim of enhancing the productivity of fisheries of its members, promoting the expansion of markets for fishery products produced by its members and the facilitation of their distribution, and increasing the economic, social, and cultural status of its members by providing them with funds, materials, technology, information, etc. required by its members.

B. On December 30, 199, Nonparty B received from the Defendant each loan of KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “the first loan”), and KRW 15,000,000 on January 6, 200 (hereinafter “the second loan”). At the time of the first loan, Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s mother C, the Plaintiff, and the second loan were jointly and severally guaranteed, respectively.

On December 23, 2001, B filed an application with the Defendant for the Fishery Management Improvement Fund, which is a special policy fund for the reduction of fishery liabilities, and received a loan of KRW 44,800,000 from the Defendant for interest rate of KRW 6.5% per annum (hereinafter “instant loan”) from the Defendant on February 23, 2002, and repaid the existing loan debt of KRW 44,800,000 ( KRW 4,000,000 for the first loan of KRW 20,000,000 for the second loan of KRW 15,00,000,000 for each of the above loans of KRW 15,80,000.

C. In the self-audit in the year 2007, the Defendant pointed out the instant loan as an unfair loan on the ground that “the instant loan has been provided for the financing purpose, etc. according to the measures to reduce fish debts, but has been used as a large loan other than agricultural and fishery funds,” and ordered the Plaintiff to take measures to return KRW 22,400,000 until June 30, 2008 on the ground that “the Plaintiff was directly managing the funds, such as the payment of interest, etc. on the instant loan, and used part of the first and second loans as a traffic accident agreement.” In the self-audit in the year 2008, the Plaintiff did not implement the said instructions.