All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. On the grounds the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court determined that the extinctive prescription has expired for KRW 3,921,814,750, supra, on the premise that commercial extinctive prescription applies to the instant educational loan obligations based on the collective agreement, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of commercial matters, or of violating the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations,

B. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that Defendant B’s intra-company labor welfare fund (hereinafter “Defendant Fund”) exempted Defendant B from the obligation to lend school loans of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to the assumption of obligation with the discharge, or by violating the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment.

2. As to Defendant Fund’s ground of appeal

A. On the grounds the first and second grounds of appeal, the lower court determined that, on behalf of the Defendant Fund, the chairperson E acquired the instant school expense loan obligation on behalf of the Defendant Fund, and that the Defendant Fund ratified it.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is acceptable, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interpretation of expression of intent or juristic act, ratification of a part of an act of representation without authority, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, etc.

B. On the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the allegation that Defendant Fund’s acquisition of the instant educational loan obligation in violation of the former Act on the intra-company labor welfare fund (amended by Act No. 8372, Apr. 11, 2007; hereinafter the same) was invalid.

The relevant legal principles and records.