1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of January 11, 2005, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 25 million to the Defendant, who was an employee of the Plaintiff, for the purpose of housing fund, but was paid only KRW 15 million from the Defendant, and was not paid the remainder of KRW 10 million. Thus, the Plaintiff sought payment from the Defendant.

B. The Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff on January 11, 2005, which was paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, is limited to KRW 15 million, and the remainder KRW 10 million was paid to the Plaintiff for housing purposes pursuant to the Plaintiff’s rules of employment. As the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the Defendant fully repaid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff.

2. Since the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff does not dispute between the original Defendant and the original Defendant, the key issue of the instant case is whether the remainder of KRW 10 million that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant is a loan or whether the Defendant, who is a member of the Plaintiff’s employment rules, has been provided free of charge for the purpose of housing funds.

The following facts are considered in light of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 8 and 9 (including serial numbers), and the overall purport of the pleadings. In other words, the plaintiff alleged that ① around September 24, 2001, the defendant joined the company that manufactures and sells electronic equipment, etc. and retired around 2014; ② the plaintiff held a general meeting of members on March 23, 2003 and revised the rules of employment; ② Paragraph 4 (4) of attached Table 4 of the Rules of Employment (No. 26 of the amended Rules of Employment No. 2; hereinafter referred to as "the supplementary provision of this case") of the amended Rules of Employment provides that "the plaintiff grants up to 10/100 of the leased money to its members," and thus, the plaintiff alleged that the supplementary provision of this case was forged.