1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds alleged by the Plaintiffs in the first instance judgment are not different from the allegations in the first instance court, and the first instance court’s judgment dismissing the Plaintiffs’ claim even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was examined together with the allegations by the Plaintiffs, can be deemed legitimate.

Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is that the court below's reasoning is that the "the chief director from the court of first instance" as "the chief director from the court of first instance", the "in this court of first instance" as "in this court of first instance", the "in this court of first instance" as "in this court of first instance", and the "the fact that no evidentiary materials are attached to the appraisal" as "the fact that most of the evidentiary materials are not attached to the appraisal" as "the fact that most of the appraisal materials are not attached", and that the plaintiffs added "the additional decision" as to the assertion that the plaintiffs repeatedly emphasized in the court of first instance as to the argument that the court of first instance added "the second additional decision" as to the "the second additional decision"

(citing only parts corresponding to the plaintiff). 2. Additional determination

A. Even if the plaintiffs' assertion has grounds for disciplinary action against the plaintiffs, they did not know the defendant's regulations and guidelines that should be observed in the performance of loan business because they had no experience in performing the loan business prior to the loan of this case. The loan of this case was conducted led by the joint plaintiffs A (hereinafter "A") of the first instance court, and thus the plaintiffs' role was formally constituted as members of the loan deliberation committee, and it was difficult for the plaintiffs to review or make a decision by clearly grasping the documents and contents of the loan of this case, and the directors or auditors who approved the loan of this case and the director who is the person in charge of the loan of this case did not receive any disciplinary action, such as the fact that the plaintiffs refused the request for withdrawal from the trade union of this case, and the plaintiffs' removal was decided in light of the procedure of the loan of this case and the degree of the plaintiffs' involvement, the circumstances of disciplinary action