1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Reference of the judgment of the court of first instance to this case

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except where the following statements are attached to the determination on the appropriateness of disciplinary action on the ground that Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited. Article 26(3) of the Defendant’s Inspection Regulations, based on the aforementioned determination, may be applied to the scope of the criteria for applying reprimand against the Defendant’s employees and employees in accordance with the reprimand standard table, and may be adjusted by taking into account the surrounding circumstances of the credit cooperative, the degree of direct and indirect relation, the amount of loss, the amount of loss, and the amount of loss compensation, etc.

The regulative criterion sheet provides that “an order for improvement shall be issued in the case of the former,” and “an order for suspension of duties or warning shall be issued in the case of the latter, by distinguishing the grounds for reprimand, falling under “an act of inflicting monetary damage on a deceased person or treasury by negligence or causing social harm” from “an act of false intent or intentional intent” and “an act of false intent or intentional intent.”

Of the grounds for reprimand by the plaintiff who caused financial loss to the Treasury of this case, the case where the defendant's evidence submitted by the defendant alone is serious for the purpose of the misconduct in excess of the possible amount of loan (the grounds for reprimand No. 5) and the grounds for reprimand by the same person.

However, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff had intentional intent.

In addition, the rest of reprimand except the above reasons is only the subject of suspension of office or warning.

In addition, even if the grounds for reprimand by the Plaintiff overlap, the surrounding circumstances of the instant credit cooperative, the degree of direct and indirect relevance, the amount of loss, and the amount of loss compensation, etc. are considered, it is difficult to view that there are special circumstances to adjust the Plaintiff to excessive reprimand rather than the criteria table for reprimand.

Therefore, this case.