1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant: 85,791,666 won to Plaintiff A and its related costs.

Facts of recognition

The relationship 1) The Defendant is a legal entity established under the E Act for the purpose of providing members with convenience in finance and life. The Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) is limited to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor.

(2) The Plaintiffs are the supervisory agencies against the Defendant. 2) The Plaintiffs are the married couple, and the Plaintiffs A are those who were employed by the Defendant on February 1, 1981 and who became the retirement age as of February 28, 2019 when they were employed as former executive officers (not executive officers) from January 2, 2006. The Plaintiffs B were those who were employed by the Defendant on October 26, 1989 and were employed as managing officers (not executive officers) from January 1, 2012.

On July 9, 2018, the Intervenor issued a standby order and imposed a disciplinary action against the Plaintiffs to the Defendant on July 10, 2018, as the Inspection Planning Team-967, and the Defendant’s internal control, etc. From July 10, 2018, the Intervenor conducted a field inspection against the Defendant from July 10, 2018. The Defendant notified the Defendant, and conducted a field inspection against the Defendant from July 10, 2018. (2) The relevant grounds are indicated as “Article 22(1)4 of the Personnel Management Regulations” in the document, but there is no dispute between the parties regarding the clerical error in Article 22(1)4 of the Personnel Management Regulations. Based on the foregoing, the Defendant issued the standby order to the Plaintiff from July 20, 2018 to the 30th 20th 7th 2018, and then notified the Plaintiff of the waiting order to the Plaintiff’s “20th 17th 2018.”

(E) The third intervenor (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant standby order”). On December 2018, 2018, the third intervenor against the Plaintiff “Defendant”: ① Occupational embezzlement, ② Private money lending, ③ Violation of ethical behavior guidelines, ④ Unfair execution of expenses, ⑤ Absence of workplace, etc., against the Plaintiff B, ① Occupational embezzlement, ② Violation of ethical behavior guidelines, ③ leaving workplace, etc.