손해배상(기)
1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 63,410,00 and 6% per annum from January 4, 2018 to January 17, 2019, and the next day.
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is a company running a construction business, etc., and the Plaintiff was appointed as a director of the Defendant on February 1, 2006 and was reappointed on March 31, 2014.
B. On October 30, 2015, the Defendant decided to dismiss the Plaintiff on the same day on the ground that “ there are circumstances that make it difficult to perform his/her duties, such as the lack of duty capacity,” at a special general meeting of shareholders.
C. At the time of the above dismissal, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 3730,000 monthly salary from the Defendant.
On the other hand, Article 23 of the defendant's articles of incorporation provides that "the term of office of a director shall be three years: Provided, That when the term of office of a director ends before the closing of a regular general shareholders' meeting concerning the last period for the settlement of accounts during his/her term of office,
【Fact-finding without a dispute over the basis for recognition】 Each entry in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The allegations and judgment of the parties
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff without any justifiable reason before the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s term of office, the Plaintiff asserts that from October 31, 2015 on the day following the date on which the Plaintiff was dismissed as compensation for damages, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for 6,3410,00 won (370,000 won x 17 months) corresponding to the wages for 17 months from March 30, 2017, the expiration date of the Plaintiff’s term of office.
In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not contribute to the management of the defendant company as a director of the defendant company while he was in charge of receiving orders from the private company, but only one private corporation could not receive orders while he was employed as a director, and that the defendant dismissed the plaintiff from office by judging that fundamental trust relationship with the plaintiff's duty to perform his duties has been lost. Thus, the defendant did not be liable for damages
B. Determination on the issues (1)