1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

3...

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s primary claim C has the right to receive the repayment of the instant obligation, and thus, the Plaintiff’s repayment is valid. Even if not, the Plaintiff’s payment of the principal and interest of loan to C ought to be deemed to have been made to the Defendant in accordance with the legal effect of repayment or expression agency (Article 126 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for confirmation that the instant obligation does not exist under the instant agreement against the Defendant. (2) As the Defendant failed to properly manage and supervise the Defendant’s entrustment of the collection of loan, and due to the occurrence of embezzlement of the principal and interest of C kept by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable for joint tort as an employer or an assistant.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate as damages the amount corresponding to the principal and interest of loan remaining after being repaid to the plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s primary claim, C does not have the right to receive the repayment of the instant debt as a loan solicitor, and the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repay the instant debt. Thus, C cannot be deemed as a quasi-Possessor of the claim. Even if C is a quasi-Possessor of the claim, it cannot be deemed that a valid repayment was made to quasi-Possessor of the claim, since C does not constitute a case where C is in good faith and without negligence. 2) As to the preliminary claim, the act of directly receiving the loan from the customer is not objectively related to the act of the loan solicitor’s office performance, and even if the Plaintiff paid a full payment, C’s act is within its authority.