1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around March 2001, the Defendant’s employees C embezzled the Defendant’s money for business purposes, and C did not refund KRW 60,000,000 out of the amount of embezzlement to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff, D (former), and E (hereinafter "Plaintiffs, etc.") who worked as an employee of the defendant as well as C at the time were loaned KRW 20,000 from the defendant to recover the damage of the defendant.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 20,000,000 from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant first loan”) on March 28, 2001.

On May 4, 2001, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 50,000,00 (hereinafter “instant loan”) from the Defendant; on the same day, the Plaintiff repaid the instant loan of KRW 1; ③ on June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 40,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”); on the same day, the Plaintiff repaid the instant loan of KRW 2; ④ on August 18, 2010, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 40,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan of KRW 4”); and on the same day, repaid the instant loan of KRW 3.

C. The Plaintiff retired from the Defendant around 2010.

As of February 23, 2015, the remaining principal of the loan No. 4 of this case is KRW 20,000,000.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's No. 4 or 12, the purport of whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion obtained a loan of KRW 20,00,000 from the Defendant and recovered the Defendant’s damage of KRW 60,000,000 that C did not return to the Defendant, and the Defendant was liable for the Defendant’s obligation of the loan.

Therefore, there is no obligation of KRW 20,000,00 among the loans of this case No. 4, which is the final obligation that remains due to the renewal or conversion of the loan obligation.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by adding up the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 13 and the purport of the entire pleadings in the above basic facts, the Defendant is merely liable to provide evidence Nos. 1 and 2.