beta
(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.10.08 2014나1117

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was dismissed from office of the representative director of the Defendant Company even after the Plaintiff retired from office, but was not paid remuneration from the Defendant Company. Although the Plaintiff’s term of office was set on March 30, 2013, the Defendant Company dismissed the Plaintiff from office on June 7, 2012, which was before the expiration of the term of office without justifiable grounds.

Therefore, the Defendant Company, as remuneration for directors, from May 201 to June 7, 2012, for which the Plaintiff was not paid to the Plaintiff, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s compensation for damages pursuant to Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act from May 201 to March 30, 2013, as compensation for damages under Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act from the following day to the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s term of office, 153,33,295 (=6,666,65 won per month x 23 months) and damages for delay.

2. From May 201 to June 7, 2012, we examine whether the Plaintiff was entitled to receive the Plaintiff’s allegation during the pertinent period.

According to the evidence No. 42-3, the Defendant Company stated that “the original resolution was made at a general meeting of shareholders on March 30, 2011.” However, according to the evidence No. 42-2, it does not appear that the Defendant Company’s payment of the amount of remuneration, as alleged by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, by a resolution that the total amount of remuneration or maximum amount of remuneration of directors shall be KRW 500 million.

(1) In addition, in light of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff served as a non-standing director without receiving any remuneration after being retired from the office of representative director of the Defendant company, and ② the Plaintiff’s payment issue for about one year from May 201 to June 7, 2012, in relation to the payment of remuneration.