1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant bank is a savings bank established for the purpose of credit installment savings business.

D from March 2006 to March 2012, as the director and the representative director of the Defendant Bank, and from that to July 2014, as the auditor of the Defendant Bank.

B. On September 30, 2013, at the Defendant Bank, Plaintiff A’s term deposit account (Account Number E) was opened in a Mppon loan amounting to KRW 63 million with the security of a term deposit amounting to KRW 70 million.

From the above account on September 30, 2013, KRW 50 million, KRW 9 million on October 1, 2013, KRW 3 million on October 8, 2013, and KRW 600,000 on October 25, 2013, respectively.

C. On November 27, 2013, at the Defendant Bank, Plaintiff B’s term deposit account (Account Number F) was opened in a Masp loan amounting to KRW 54 million with the security of a term deposit amounting to KRW 60 million.

From the above account on November 27, 2013, KRW 38 million, KRW 15 million on November 28, 2013, and KRW 965,00 on November 29, 2013 respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The key point of the Plaintiffs’ assertion was, without hearing detailed explanations at D’s request, that Defendant Bank G employees G stated the personal information in the application form for the new Linna loan and entered the name in the list of blanks in several Chapters.

However, D and G withdrawn money from the loan account under the names of the plaintiffs using blank pre-marks without the plaintiffs' permission.

The Plaintiffs suffered damages equivalent to the amount stated in the claims, due to the tort of D and G as above.

Such D and G torts are within the scope of the defendant bank's office work execution.

Therefore, the defendant bank is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as users of D and G.

In addition, D was provided with loans in the name of the plaintiffs in the form to avoid the application of the Mutual Savings Banks Act which prohibits credit extension to major shareholders, and D's above acts are in the Mutual Savings Banks Act.