1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, since the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to cutting or deleting a part of the following paragraph (2), it shall be accepted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is to be filled or deleted, shall be filled in the following subparagraphs.

C. (1) Whether the grounds for disciplinary action exist or not, (1) whether the Intervenor’s act of attracting customers falls under an unfair customer inducement activity, the officers and employees of the Intervenor shall deal with it in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Credit Business Manual, various laws and regulations, sound financial practices, and common sense. According to Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Intervenor’s “Guidelines for the Prevention of Unsound Business Conduct”, the officers and employees shall not engage in unsound business conduct without justifiable grounds.

However, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the purport of Eul evidence 5-1 through 6, Eul evidence 9-1, Eul evidence 27, and Eul evidence 27, and 38 as a whole, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff performed an act of inducing customers by providing multiple loans through introduction from July 201 to March 2014, and thereby causing losses to the intervenor company by dealing with unfair credit in the process and causing non-performing loans (the statement of evidence No. 5 is difficult to believe that the statement of evidence No. 5 is contrary thereto) of the Intervenor’s punishment provision, which constitutes disciplinary grounds as provided for in subparagraphs 3, 5, 10, and 12 of Article 14 of the Intervenor’s Punishment Regulation.

(A) From July 21, 201 to March 2014, the Plaintiff treated a total of KRW 139 cases and KRW 4.96 million as C’s introduction (hereinafter “instant credit”). As a result, as of September 1, 2014, the overdue amount of KRW 72 cases and KRW 1847 billion (3.8% per annum) arose, and as of May 11, 2015, KRW 2.5 billion is KRW 25 million.