2. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's remaining appeal are dismissed.

3. One half of the total litigation costs shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

○ Purport of appeal

1. Plaintiff: The part against the Plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 9,190,590 won with 5% per annum from November 3, 2016 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

2. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the part of the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

① From August 27, 2012 to June 11, 2013, the Plaintiff’s application for rehabilitation procedures was made to the regular director of the Defendant Company; from June 12, 2013 to October 20, Article 24(2) of the Articles of incorporation provides that “the retirement allowances of executives shall be governed by separate rules for the payment of retirement allowances for executives”; “the guidelines for the payment of retirement allowances for executives” (documents number DI-083; December 5, 2008) enacted in accordance with the above articles of incorporation provides that “the above guidelines for the payment of retirement allowances for executives” (the above guidelines for the payment of retirement allowances for 10th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1st 206th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

(a) A claim to pay a retirement allowance;

(1) First, we examine whether the right to claim a retirement allowance is established or not. The remuneration of directors shall be governed by the articles of incorporation (Article 388 of the Commercial Act), and the retirement allowance is included in remuneration for the performance of duties while in office (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da38930, Feb. 24, 1999). Thus, the above provision applies to the retirement allowance. According to the articles of incorporation and the guidelines for the payment of retirement allowances for officers, the defendant is obligated to pay the retirement allowance calculated in accordance with the above guidelines to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the above guidelines have no effect since they did not go through a resolution of the board of directors. However, in light of its name and content, the above guidelines are deemed to have been enacted based on Article 24 (2) of the articles of incorporation, and considering the fact that the document number, amendment date, etc. was assigned to the above guidelines, and that retirement allowances were paid to retired executives several times in accordance with the above guidelines, the above guidelines are presumed to be effective regulations established through legitimate procedures of the defendant company (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da47677, Mar. 26, 2009), and there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(2) Next, according to the statements in Gap evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-1, No. 2, and No. 3 as to the amount of the claim for retirement benefits, the monthly fixed amount at the time when the plaintiff retired from the defendant company can be recognized as 12,860,160. In accordance with the above guidelines, the retirement benefits to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff shall be 25,456,070 won (12,860,160 won x 289 days x 2.5 days/365 days x 2.5 days of regular payment rate x less than 2.5 days of regular payment rate x less than 172,925,110 won (12,860,160 won x 1,27/365 x 4.0 x 1,275 days x 4.0), barring special circumstances, the defendant shall pay the above retirement benefits to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's defense of offset

(1) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff caused damages to the Defendant Company by illegally committing an unlawful act of filing an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures with respect to the Defendant Company without a resolution of the board of directors, and that the damage claim against the Plaintiff arising therefrom is offset against the above retirement allowance payment obligation by setting the automatic claim.

(2) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s application for commencing rehabilitation procedures constitutes a tort against the Defendant. Directors are obligated to faithfully perform their duties on behalf of the Defendant pursuant to the statutes and the articles of incorporation (Article 382-3 of the Commercial Act), and the disposal and transfer of important assets, borrowing of large-scale assets, the appointment or dismissal of managers, and the establishment, relocation or abolition of branch offices are subject to resolution by the board of directors (Article 393(1) of the Commercial Act). Accordingly, the articles of incorporation of the Defendant Company also stipulates that the board of directors shall determine important matters concerning the execution of the business of the Defendant Company (Article 25

1) In light of the above Acts and subordinate statutes and the articles of incorporation, an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures is intended to limit or prohibit the creditors' exercise of their individual rights, transfer of the right to dispose of property and the right to carry out their duties through the appointment of a custodian, and to change the overall rights and obligations throughout the company, such as adjustment of debts, such as exemption or debt-equity swap, restructuring of corporate structure, etc., and reorganization of business structure, etc. In the event rehabilitation is impossible during the rehabilitation procedure, the bankruptcy procedure, i.e., the completion of the company. Considering this point, it is reasonable to deem that the application for commencing rehabilitation falls under the important matters concerning the management of the company (in this regard, the rehabilitation court requires the minutes of the board of directors to verify the debtor's genuine intent at the time of applying for commencing rehabilitation procedures, and dismiss the application without the resolution of the board of directors), and if the resolution of the board of directors is required under the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes and the director's duty of loyalty is violated. Nevertheless, the plaintiff against the defendant without the resolution

2) On this issue, the Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of filing the above application, the Defendant’s director was the Plaintiff, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 7, but Nonparty 6 was subject to a provisional disposition suspending the performance of duties as a director of the Defendant Company on August 22, 2016 (No. 2016Kahap1094). Nonparty 7 was registered as a director of the Suwon District Court, and Nonparty 7 was registered as Nonparty 1’s inside director, and he was not qualified as a director in violation of Article 397 of the Commercial Act (no. s. 397). Thus, at the time of filing an application for the Plaintiff

A) First, according to the evidence No. 16, the fact that Nonparty 6 received a provisional disposition to suspend the exercise of director's duties as above is recognized. However, according to the above decision No. 2, the plaintiff could have convened the board of directors with Nonparty 8 as a director acting for Nonparty 6's acting representative. Thus, according to the above decision No. 2, the plaintiff could have convened the board of directors with Nonparty 8 as a director acting for the director. Thus, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B) Next, Article 397(1) of the Commercial Act provides that “The director shall not be a director of another company for the same business purpose without the approval of the board of directors,” and does not provide that “the director shall be a director of the same business purpose without the approval of the board of directors.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that Nonparty 7 is not qualified as a director on the ground that Nonparty 7 was registered as a director of the company higher than that of Nonparty 7, separate from the Plaintiff’s proposal for dismissal of Nonparty 7’s director at the general meeting of stockholders or the board of directors, on the ground that Nonparty 7 was registered as a director of another company, is registered as a director of the company, is without merit (On the other hand, the Defendant’s main purpose is domestic and foreign trade business (Evidence No. 1) and the main purpose of subparagraph 17 of the company is a sports facility construction business (Evidence No.

(3) Next, we examine the scope of the Defendant’s damage claim.

1) On September 2016, the Defendant: (a) received project strike loans from the immediately investment securities company; and (b) sought to receive a new project from the Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd.; and (c) it was impossible to obtain the said loans upon the Plaintiff’s application for commencing the rehabilitation procedures; and (d) accordingly, (c) the Plaintiff is obliged to compensate the Defendant for the expected profits of KRW 2.46 billion, which the Defendant could have obtained from the said project.

On the other hand, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above profits are to be definitely expected to occur to the defendant only by the descriptions of Nos. 5 (Public Notice in the course of raising funds for investment securities) and Nos. 6 (Public Notice in the Draft of Land Trust Business Agreement. Nos. 7 (No signature of the parties), and Nos. 8 (No signature of the parties) as shown in the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

2) 다음으로 피고는, 2017년 1분기 중에 □□ □□□□ □-□□□ 공동주택 신축공사, ◇◇ ◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇◇ 연립주택 신축공사, ☆☆ ☆☆☆ ☆☆☆☆ ☆-☆☆☆ 오피스텔 신축공사, ▽▽주택공사아파트 신축공사를 피고가 수주할 예정이었는데, 원고의 회생절차개시신청으로 위 각 사업을 수주하지 못하게 되었으므로, 원고는 피고에게 위 사업으로 피고가 얻을 수 있었던 95억 8,916만 원의 예상수익을 배상할 의무가 있다고 주장한다.

In light of the above argument, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above profits of the defendant were to be anticipated to occur clearly, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, the above assertion of the defendant is not acceptable. The above assertion of the defendant is not accepted. The above assertion of the defendant is not accepted. It is not reasonable to acknowledge that the statement of the evidence No. 9-1 (Report on Estimated Works in △△△△), Eul evidence No. 9-2 (Related Materials related to ○○ Construction

3) Next, the defendant, upon the plaintiff's application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, lost the benefit of the time limit for loans to the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter "National Bank"), and the defendant additionally bears the obligation to pay damages for delay of KRW 42,677,039 to the National Bank. The plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to the above additional damages for delay is liable to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above argument solely on the basis of the statement No. 12-1 (Account Statement of Interest Loss by National Bank) and No. 31 (Notice of Commencement of Legal Proceedings by National Bank) as shown in the above argument. Rather, according to each of the above evidence, the National Bank applies the agreed rate (7.69% per annum) from August 22, 2016 when the plaintiff applied the overdue interest rate (13.69% per annum) to September 14, 2016 after the plaintiff's application was rejected for commencement of rehabilitation procedure and the non-party 1's application was filed for commencement of rehabilitation procedure. Accordingly, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The defendant argues that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 are joint tortfeasors who have recruited an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures against the defendant company, and even if the above damage was done by the non-party 1's application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, they are liable to compensate the plaintiff. However, it is insufficient to recognize this only with the statement of the evidence No. 21 (the notice of convening the board of directors' notice). The above assertion

4) Next, the defendant, upon the plaintiff's application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, lost the interest of the time limit for the repayment of the loan to our bank (hereinafter "Korea bank"), and the defendant additionally bears the liability to Korean bank for delay damages of KRW 13,328,369. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of the above additional delay damages is liable to the defendant for compensation.

On the other hand, according to the above argument Eul evidence Nos. 11-1 (a credit transaction agreement, etc. of our bank) and Eul evidence Nos. 29 (a notice of loss of the term of loans), it is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion that the defendant had been granted a loan of KRW 1950 million from our bank as of April 28, 2016 under the terms of the agreement rate of 4.04% and overdue interest rate of 11.04%, but the above delayed interest rate of 11.04%. Rather, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff's claim that the above delayed interest obligation was made upon the plaintiff's application for the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure is dismissed and the non-party 1's application for the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure was made on September 8, 2016. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedure against the defendant was rejected by 60% from the date of the plaintiff's application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedure.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 are joint tortfeasors who have recruited an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures against the defendant company, and even if such damage was done by the application for commencing rehabilitation procedures of non-party 1, they are liable to compensate the plaintiff. However, the above assertion is groundless

5) Next, the defendant, upon the plaintiff's application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, lost the interest of the time limit for loans to the new bank (hereinafter "new bank"), and the defendant additionally bears 8,100,723 damages for delay against the bank. The plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to the above additional damages for delay is liable to the defendant.

On the other hand, it is insufficient to acknowledge the above argument by the Defendant only with the entries in the evidence Nos. 11-2 (Agreement on Credit Transaction of New Bank) and the evidence No. 12-2 (New Bank Interest Loss Account) as shown in the above argument. Rather, according to the above evidence, the new bank is found to have dismissed the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation commencement application and started to apply the overdue interest rate (10.4969% per annum) to November 22, 2016, after Nonparty 1’s rehabilitation commencement application was filed. This is a circumstance to prove that there was no causation between the Plaintiff’s rehabilitation commencement application and the loss of interest due to new bank. Accordingly, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 are joint tortfeasors who have recruited an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures against the defendant company, and even if such damage was done by the application for commencing rehabilitation procedures of non-party 1, they are liable to compensate the plaintiff. However, the above assertion is groundless

6) Next, the Defendant lost the benefit of the time limit for loans to Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation upon the Plaintiff’s application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, and the Defendant additionally bears the above Corporation’s liability for delay damages of KRW 59,883,196. The Plaintiff asserts that the above additional damages for delay is liable to the Defendant.

On the other hand, it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion only with the statement of No. 12-3 (Account Statement of Interest Loss of the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation) as shown in the above argument. Rather, according to the above evidence, the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation applies the agreed rate (1.15% per annum) from August 22, 2016 when the Plaintiff filed an application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures to September 6, 2016 when the said application was rejected, and applied the overdue interest rate (7% per annum) from September 11, 2016 after the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures was rejected and Nonparty 1 filed the application for non-party 1’s commencement of rehabilitation procedures. Accordingly, it is reasonable to prove that there was no causation between the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures and the loss of interest based on the Housing and Urban Guarantee Corporation. Accordingly, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 are joint tortfeasors who have recruited an application for commencing rehabilitation procedures against the defendant company, and even if such damage was done by the application for commencing rehabilitation procedures of non-party 1, they are liable to compensate the plaintiff. However, the above assertion is groundless

7) Next, the defendant, upon the plaintiff's application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, lost the interest of the time limit for loans to the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and the defendant additionally bears the above union's liability for delay damages of KRW 41,430,484. The plaintiff asserts that the above additional delay damages are liable to the defendant.

According to the statement in Eul evidence Nos. 12-4, Eul evidence Nos. 15 and Eul evidence Nos. 24, the defendant received a loan of KRW 19,4250,000 from the Construction Mutual Aid Association on January 4, 2016. According to the credit rating, the defendant applied the agreement rate of KRW 1.43% per annum, interest rate of delay rate of KRW 7% per annum, ② pursuant to Article 11 (1) 4 of the transaction agreement, the transaction agreement provides the grounds for loss of interest within the deadline for filing an application. ③ The Construction Mutual Aid Association sent a letter to the defendant, stating that "I pay the principal and interest of loan and delayed interest rate of KRW 19,425,00 from the date of filing an application for filing an application for commencing the procedure, and the defendant appears to have paid KRW 1.43% per annum to the defendant on August 31, 2016.

According to the above facts, interest under the agreed rate (1.43% per annum) from August 6, 2016 to January 4, 2017, which was the full date (1.43% per annum), which applied the overdue interest rate, shall be 11,871,59 won [1,94,250,000 won] x 118 days (1.43% from August 6, 2016 to December 1, 2016) x 1,990,95,00 won x 34 days (1.4% from December 2, 2016 to January 4, 2017) x 53,267,750 won under the interest rate, and the defendant's allegation that he/she suffered losses within 1.57,195,197,197,519,570 won as the defendant's ground for filing an application for commencing the rehabilitation procedure.

8) Next, the Defendant lost the interest of the time limit for loans to Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Modern Securities Co., Ltd.”) upon the Plaintiff’s application for commencing rehabilitation procedures, and the Defendant additionally bears the liability for delay damages of KRW 76,637,95 with respect to Hyundai Securities. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to the above additional delay damages is liable to the Defendant.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 10, 10-1, 12-5, 12-2 of No. 32, the defendant, on June 1, 2016, borrowed 2.10 million won from the non-party Hyundai Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "real-time securities") at the rate of 5% per annum and 17% per annum. According to the evidence No. 14(a) of the loan agreement and Article 13(1)7(6) of the loan agreement, the agreement was stipulated as the ground for loss of the interest due to the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, 2.2. 1. 1. 2. 1. 2. 2. 1. 3. 2. 2. 3. 16, 2016, 206. 3. 1. 2. 3. 1. 206, 206, 2016. 3. 16. 3. 3. 14. 2. 1. 206

9) Next, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, paid in cash all kinds of payments that could have been paid in a bill to the original Defendant and the subcontractor in the transaction with the material trader, thereby making an additional disbursement of the financial costs of KRW 71,00,000,000,000,000,000 for the financial cost of September 2016, which would have been paid in cash, and additionally paid KRW 365,735,747 at the financial cost of the purchase price from October 2016 to April 2017. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the financial cost of each of the above financial costs.

On the other hand, the above payment obligation of the defendant was incurred regardless of the plaintiff's application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures. The damage incurred by the plaintiff's failure to make a settlement of bills and making cash settlement through the plaintiff's application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures constitutes special damage, and the plaintiff is responsible only when the defendant proves that the plaintiff knew or could have known such circumstances. The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to find whether the defendant actually bears the above financial costs, and whether the defendant knew or could have known such circumstances, and there is no other evidence to find otherwise. Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

10) Next, the defendant, upon the plaintiff's application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, suffered losses of KRW 40,445,527 due to a rise in the rate of guarantee fees as a result of obtaining a credit rating of class D from the Construction Mutual Aid Association and the Korea Housing Guarantee, and each guarantee agency's refusal of guarantee business against the defendant, resulting in losses of KRW 48,519,126 due to delayed receipt of construction payment due to the failure of the defendant's completion of the construction work. The plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for the above damages.

The statement of No. 26-1 of the evidence No. 26 alone is merely a fact that the Defendant’s credit rating of the construction mutual aid association was no grade at the time of August 26, 2016 (al.e., loss of the effect of grade) and there is no evidence to support that the Defendant suffered damage as alleged by the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

11) Next, the Defendant terminated eight cases of the Electric Power Fee Guarantee Agreement with the Korea Electric Power Corporation established with the Defendant upon the Plaintiff’s application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the Defendant deposited KRW 80,475,00 with the Korea Electric Power Corporation as a security deposit. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant has a duty to pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 6,725,293 equivalent to the financial costs incurred by the Defendant.

According to each of the statements 17 evidence Nos. 17 and 27 evidence Nos. 27-1 through 5, the construction mutual aid association notified the Korea Electric Power Corporation of the termination of the electric fee guarantee contract in the construction site stated below on August 22, 2016 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of the rehabilitation procedure was filed, (2) the Korea Electric Power Corporation requested the Defendant to deposit money in the amount stated on the deposit column as below, and (3) the Defendant is recognized to have deposited the amount stated on the deposit column on the fixed date.

본문내 포함된 표 공사명 보증금(원)① 기간(일)② 손해액(원)(①×②/365×0.05) ◎◎ ◎◎◎◎ ◎◎◎ 4,950,000 332 225,123 ◁◁ ◁◁ 19,800,000 474 1,285,643 ▷▷ 아파트 신축공사 30,600,000 169 708,410 ♤♤-♤♤간 도로 225,000 480 14,794 ♡♡검역계류장 6,600,000 414 374,301 ●●하수처리장 1,800,000 358 88,273 ▲▲▲▲현장 9,900,000 654 886,931 ■■■■신축현장 6,600,000 169 152,794 합계 3,736,269

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant incurred losses since the Defendant paid the above additional loans upon the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the scope of such losses is at least the amount equivalent to the financial interest of the above money. However, since the Defendant did not submit the evidence on the interest rate paid for the above loans, the interest rate for calculating the amount of losses shall be set at 5% per annum, which is a civil interest rate (Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the amount of losses is identical to the statement on the total amount of damages in the above table, and therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable within the scope of

12) Next, the Defendant deposited a total of KRW 478,706,00 in the above union to continue the construction business after the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 20,223,506 to the Defendant for damages equivalent to financial expenses incurred by the Defendant for the above investment.

According to the facts in dispute, the facts without dispute and the facts in Eul evidence 18, the defendant is found to have deposited the amount stated in the investment column in the following table during the period of time.

The amount of losses (i) and (ii) during the period of investment (2/365 x 0.05) included in the main sentence, (ii) the period of investment (i) and (ii) the amount of losses (2/365 x 0.05) in September 20, 2016, 1927,448,448,157 October 194, 194,000,00 on November 197, 2016, 1413,747,123 in total; 11,195,280

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant incurred losses since the Defendant paid the above additional loans upon the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the scope of such losses is at least the amount equivalent to the financial interest of the above money. However, since the Defendant did not submit the evidence on the interest rate paid for the above loans, the interest rate for calculating the amount of losses shall be set at 5% per annum, which is a civil interest rate (Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the amount of losses is identical to the statement on the total amount of damages in the above table, and therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable within the scope of

13) Next, the defendant deposited a total of KRW 165,945,287 in the above union which received a payment guarantee for subcontract consideration from the Construction Mutual Aid Association upon the plaintiff's application for commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff has a duty to pay the defendant the amount of KRW 7,908,644 equivalent to the financial cost of the above deposit suffered by the defendant.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant is found to have deposited the amount stated in the guarantee deposit column in the following table during the period of time.

(1) 603,342 49,80,800,800,990,000 68,080,080 590,163,930 29,508,1630,50829,150 852,906 377,100,0018,85,000,85,000,001 852,906 187,85,00,00 397,397,76361,50,500,005, 00 397,76361,50,000,005,0705,07,081841,847,197,184,2838,47,481,57,200,00,000

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant incurred losses since the Defendant paid the above additional loans upon the Plaintiff’s application for the commencement of rehabilitation procedures, and the scope of such losses is at least the amount equivalent to the financial interest of the above money. However, since the Defendant did not submit the evidence on the interest rate paid for the above loans, the interest rate for calculating the amount of losses shall be set at 5% per annum, which is a civil interest rate (Article 202-2 of the Civil Procedure Act). Thus, the amount of losses is identical to the statement on the total amount of damages in the above table, and therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is reasonable within the scope of

14) Therefore, the Plaintiff has a duty to pay to the Defendant a total sum of KRW 137,359,423 (won 41,396,191 + KRW 76,637,95 + KRW 3,736,269 + KRW 11,195,280 + KRW 4,393,688) and damages for delay.

(4) We examine the following set-off:

1) Article 497 of the Civil Act provides that “if a claim is not available for seizure, the debtor shall not set up against the creditor by set-off.” Article 246(1)5 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “a claim equivalent to one half of retirement allowances and other wage claims of similar nature shall be prohibited from seizure,” and the above prohibited claim shall also include retirement allowances of directors (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da51968, May 30, 2018).

2) In light of the above legal principles, set-off is prohibited within the scope of 9,190,590 won (198,381,180 won ± 2), which is an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the retirement allowances of the Plaintiff recognized above, and damages for delay, and only the remainder of 9,150,590 won is set-off.

3) Therefore, the Defendant’s damage claim KRW 137,359,423 and KRW 99,150,590 of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim were set off on the date each claim occurred. The Defendant’s written brief dated June 20, 2017 to the effect that each of the above claims against the Plaintiff was set off against the Plaintiff on an equal amount is evident in the record, and the Defendant’s claim for retirement allowance was served on the Plaintiff on June 21, 2017. The amount of KRW 99,150,590 out of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance claim was recognized to have expired within the extent equal to that of the Defendant’s damage claim. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense of set-off has merit

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from March 4, 2017, which is the day following the day on which the plaintiff served a copy of the complaint in this case stating the plaintiff's declaration of intent to claim the payment of retirement allowances after offset against the plaintiff (the plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay from November 3, 2016, but the plaintiff's right to claim payment of retirement allowances against the defendant is not specified in the due date, and the plaintiff's right to claim payment of retirement allowances against the defendant has a duty to claim payment of damages for delay from December 6, 2018 until December 6, 2018, which is the date the decision of the court of first instance is rendered (the Commercial Act shall not apply as requested by the plaintiff) to the plaintiff, and from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance which has different conclusions is unfair, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting only part of the defendant's appeal.

Judges Yang Sung-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)