1. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The defendant shall receive KRW 37,549,04 from C.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 26, 2006, C entered into a loan contract with the Defendant (the trade name at the time was the “Yandong Saemaul Depository,” and was changed as of February 28, 2007) (the period of loan: July 27, 2009) within the limit of KRW 75,00,000,00, and opened an account indicating the balance of the loan (D; hereinafter “instant account”).

B. In order to secure the above loan obligations against the Defendant on the same day, the Plaintiff, the mother of C, committed a registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage of this case”), which is the debtor C and the maximum debt amount KRW 90 million, to the Defendant, as prescribed by Article 93750 of the Incheon District Court’s receipt of support from the Busan District Court.

C. On December 9, 2008, when a loan balance of KRW 30,000,00 ( principal) in the instant account was executed and withdrawn under C’s name (hereinafter “first loan”) with a 30,000,000 loan, the balance of the loan in the instant account increased by the above amount. On January 19, 209, a loan of KRW 15,000,000 (hereinafter “second loan”) was withdrawn under C’s name (hereinafter “second loan”) was executed in combination with the first loan, and the balance of the loan in the instant account increased by the above amount.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 15 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. 1 Plaintiff’s assertion 1 Plaintiff’s employee E arbitrarily executed each of the instant loans under the name of C without C’s consent and withdraws KRW 45,00,000. As such, C does not bear the obligation of loans under each of the instant loans.

However, since the defendant's employees E, etc. voluntarily withdrawn and used each of the loans of this case regardless of C, the defendant bears the liability for damages to C, and the written brief dated February 25, 2014.