1. Of the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff who is ordered to pay below.

1. The court's explanation of this case in this case is "2. Judgment" among the judgment of the court of first instance.

A. (2) Determination as to whether or not the Defendants are liable for compensation is made (2) and the scope of the Defendants’ liability for compensation is not more than '(No. 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, No. 19 of the judgment)' (in addition to the following cases, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The defendant's liability for damages and its scope (1) The defendant, who was the executive officer of the plaintiff's executive officer, was accurately aware of the credit operation manual applicable to the union of this case and performed the loan in excess of the limit on loans set out in the credit operation manual, with excessive attention to the duty to implement the loan by complying therewith. This is because the defendant did not properly perform the duty of the fiduciary duty imposed on the plaintiff under the employment contract with the plaintiff, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff's damages due to the above unfair loan.

In addition, the co-defendant C of the first instance court, as the president of the instant association, did not perform his/her duty of care to supervise the Defendant’s business, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage.

(2) Where an executive or employee of a financial institution based on the calculation of the scope of liability for damages causes damages to a financial institution due to failure to collect loans by neglecting his/her duties by violating the provisions concerning credit business, the ordinary damages suffered by the financial institution is the principal and interest which could have been recovered if the executive or employee acquired adequate security by complying with the provisions of the executive

(see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da81213, Oct. 29, 2015). The Plaintiff seeks full compensation against the Defendant for the amount that has not been recovered out of the instant loans, but the provisions of the instant loans are applicable.