All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Intervenor C.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

A. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment on the first ground of appeal, the lower court acknowledged the following facts based on adopted evidence.

(1) On November 2009, G, upon receipt of a request from the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), to lend money from the Intervenor’s Defendant (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), asked D, a subordinate employee, who was in charge of the clerical assistance, to lend KRW 70 million to the Intervenor B while talking that the Intervenor was his/her own punishment.

(2) The Intervenor B, upon receiving D from G, urged D to pay the amount of money by directly using telephone and internal Messenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssenssens, and D transferred to the Intervenor B totaled KRW 70 million on November 30, 2009 and December 3, 2009.

(3) After receiving the aforementioned remittance from D, the Intervenor sent the message to D to the effect that it is directly able to use the intra-company Messenger.

B) The lower court determined that D’s borrowing and lending of money from D and B does not constitute “when the Intervenor violated corporate ethics management, such as an interested party in relation to his/her duties, donation, entertainment, or lending and lending of money,” under Article 56(1)9 of the Plaintiff’s Rules of Employment. Furthermore, even if the Intervenor was the interested party at the time of monetary lending and lending, the lower court determined that the Intervenor’s borrowing and lending of money constitutes “when the Intervenor was in violation of the employee’s duty” under Article 56(1)1 of the Plaintiff’s Rules of Employment or “when the Intervenor committed an act contrary to the employee’s duty” under Article 56(1)3 of the Plaintiff’s Rules of Employment. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court determined that the Intervenor’s borrowing and lending of money constitutes “when the Intervenor committed an act detrimental to the employee’s good faith” under Article 56(1)3 of the Plaintiff’s Rules of Employment.