1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the claim for return of deposit

A. On July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into two regular deposit agreements with Defendant’s Treasury on the annual interest rate of 4.3%, and on July 18, 2013, the maturity date of 10 million won (Account Number B) and 40 million won (Account Number C) respectively (hereinafter “first regular deposit”; hereinafter “the second regular deposit of this case”; hereinafter “each of the instant regular deposits”) do not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts, the defendant's credit cooperative is obligated to pay the plaintiff a regular deposit amount of KRW 50 million, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The main point of the argument is as to the defense of the Defendant’s credit cooperative (A) Defendant credit cooperative concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff’s children who represented the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s delegation and entered into a loan agreement of KRW 9.5 million and KRW 38 million with the Plaintiff, and paid each of the above loans to the Plaintiff.

After that, on July 22, 2013, Defendant Treasury set off each of the above loans and each of the instant regular deposits against an equal amount, and paid 2,708,913 won to the Plaintiff with the remaining regular deposits. As such, each of the instant regular deposits was extinguished by the said offset and repayment.

B) Even if D did not have been delegated by the Plaintiff in connection with the conclusion of each of the above loan agreements, the Plaintiff ratified each of the instant regular deposit claims in accordance with D’s non-authorized representation on the date of offsetting the above loan claims and the Plaintiff’s regular deposit claims. As such, the Plaintiff was aware of the act of offsetting the above loan claims and the Plaintiff’s regular deposit claims, the Plaintiff terminated all of the instant regular deposit claims according to the aforementioned offset and the payment of the remaining regular deposit amount. (2) In fact, the Plaintiff’s claim was recognized on May 30, 2012. On August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for Internet banking in the name of the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s Treasury in the name of the Plaintiff, and opened the online self-reliance deposit account (Account Number E; hereinafter “instant account”). On September 3, 2012, the said Internet banking account was established.