2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

As to this, the defendant appealed only to the part against which he lost, and the plaintiff also appealed to the part against which he lost, but withdrawn it, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against which the defendant lost, which was cited in the first instance court, 75 million won.

Basic Facts

As to the instant case, the underlying facts, among the reasons to be explained by the court, are the same as those falling under the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

Judgment on the plaintiff's claim for payment of unpaid benefits

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff worked as the Defendant’s intra-company director from January 2, 2014 to September 1, 2015, and the Defendant did not pay for five-month benefits from April 2015 to August 2015 (=15 million won x 5 months). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said unpaid benefits of KRW 75 million and delay damages.

B. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this part is as follows, except for the defendant’s defense added to the following paragraph 4, since it is the same as the content stated in the item “(c)” of Article 7-9 of the judgment of the court of first instance, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judgment on the defendant's defense

가. 보수청구권의 제한 필요성 여부에 대한 판단 1) 피고의 주장 원고가 사내이사로 근무한 데 대하여 보수청구권이 인정된다 하더라도 회사의 규모 및 재무상태, 원고의 복무형태 등에 비추어 합리적인 범위 내로 제한되어야 한다. 2) 판단 다툼 없는 사실, 을 제1, 9, 11, 12호증에 변론...