1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a juristic person established pursuant to D law, under the direction and supervision of N Organizations (hereinafter “N Organizations”) pursuant to Article 79 of D Act.

On April 1, 1997, the plaintiff was appointed as the employee of class 8-14 of the defendant's 1997, and was called "general affairs" while working as the "head of the department in charge of general affairs of the defendant.

B. The Defendant’s attachment against the Plaintiff from NE on December 16, 2014

1. The Plaintiff’s act, such as a request for deliberation by head A and a statement of violation, was ordered to take disciplinary action (refluence) on the ground that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes “the occurrence of abnormal transactions with members, improper handling of deposits, improper conduct of loans exceeding the amount of loans,” and improper conduct of electronic financial services,” and accordingly, the Defendant was subject to disciplinary action (refluence in salary year) around 2015.

C. The Plaintiff borrowed each of the Defendant’s regular deposits of FF, G and H as security and used the loans for personal use as follows.

(1) The Plaintiff: (a) prepared the document for the application for a loan to the F and made a loan to the F to the extent as collateral; and (b) made a loan to the F to the extent as collateral; (c) made use of the certificate of seal imprint kept and managed by the Plaintiff; (d) KRW 45 million on November 19, 2015; (d) KRW 35 million on March 18, 2016; (e) KRW 15 million on June 23, 2016; and (e) withdrawn KRW 115,00,000,000 on August 19, 2016; and (e) made a loan to the Plaintiff within the scope as collateral; and (e) made a loan to the Plaintiff, using the certificate of seal imprint kept and managed by the Plaintiff; and (e) made a loan to the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 360,500,000 on May 16, 2015; and (e) made a withdrawal to the head of the passbook.

3 The Plaintiff obtained the H’s authorized certificate and carried out a loan to the extent that it provides a regular deposit in the name of H as security with smart banking through such issuance.