2. The costs of the lawsuit, including costs incurred by participation, are all assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. The parties concerned are corporations established and operated under the Credit Unions Act, which operate three branches of the head office, C branch and D branch, and Defendant Intervenors (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenors”) are corporations incorporated with unions in order to guide and supervise the business of credit unions and promote the promotion of their common interests and the sound development, and the Plaintiff is appointed as the Defendant’s standing director on March 24, 2014.

B. Embezzlement’s embezzlement (1) of the instant secured loans and deposits is a person who worked as the leader of the Defendant’s D Branch. On May 2, 2014, upon the Plaintiff’s approval, the secured loan amounting to KRW 650,000,000 on the condition that the mortgage and superficies on real estate to be purchased by F is established with respect to F (hereinafter “instant secured loan”). However, in fact, the secured loan was not established as a collateral or superficies.

E withdrawn 650,000,000 won of the above collateral loan deposited in the account in the name of the F's self-reliance deposit as a check, etc. and embezzled and discarded the loan-related documents.

(2) On September 14, 2014, E, without any deposit in the account, embezzled KRW 1,100,000,000, and KRW 500,000,00 in the account under the name of the limited liability company (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) into the account under the name of the F, by means of inputting and 10,000,000, and by means of inputting’s ID and password, which is the location of the D branch office, without permission, were computerized as if each deposit was made in the account under the name of the limited liability company, and then remitting the sum of KRW 1,60,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

C. The Defendant’s losses (1) around July 2012, the instant intermediate payment loan and the Defendant’s losses (hereinafter “instant apartment”) are to set up a collateral security upon the completion of the instant apartment, under the direction of the Plaintiff, who was the regular manager of the Defendant, as of the day of July 2012, as to nine buyers of an urban-type residential house J (hereinafter “instant apartment”).