1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the subsequent order of payment is revoked.

2...

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiffs claimed payment of loans, wages, retirement allowances, annual-end refund, performance-end refund, and bonus. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for refund for year-end settlement, and dismissed the rest of the claim.

As to this, only the plaintiffs appealed against the losing part, and reduced the retirement allowance claim according to the cited amount of the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to loans, wages, incentives, and bonus claims.

2. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2013, the deceased A (former names: G; hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) joined the Defendant, and was appointed as an internal director on June 12, 2013. On March 27, 2015, the Ulsan District Court 2015Kahap7 decided to suspend the performance of duties, and retired on June 15, 2015.

B. During the instant lawsuit, the Deceased died on March 28, 2016, and the Plaintiff C, D, and E, who is the wife of the Deceased, succeeded to the Deceased.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, the result of the defendant representative director's questioning, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) was as follows: (a) the Deceased’s claim was made from March 19, 2013 to June 15, 2015 at the Defendant’s representative director H’s request and lent KRW 131,592,00 in total to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of the Defendant; (b) the Deceased was reimbursed KRW 61,50,000. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs sought reimbursement of KRW 70,092,00 for outstanding loans to the Defendant; (c) the determination of KRW 1,2,3,10-1,2,3, and 10-1 to 156-1,2,3, and 10-1, and 10-1 to 156; (d) according to the Defendant’s representative director’s examination result and the overall purport of the Defendant’s argument suspended on behalf of the Defendant’s representative director at the first instance court from March 16, 2013.