beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.08.30 2016나55759

이사보수금등 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company established on August 16, 200 and engaged in agricultural products wholesale and consignment sales business.

B. The Plaintiff worked as the Defendant’s standing director from March 30, 2008 to March 30, 2008, as the Defendant’s representative director from March 31, 2008 to March 31, 2013, and as the Defendant’s standing director from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, as a standing director, paid the Plaintiff a remarkably low amount of remuneration compared to other directors by failing to pay or paying only a part of the number of directors during the period in which the Plaintiff worked as a standing director (from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016). The Plaintiff has the right to claim remuneration under the Commercial Act against the Defendant. As the Plaintiff has the right to claim compensation under the Commercial Act, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid remuneration of KRW 120,000,000, and the delay damages therefrom. (2) The Defendant’s representative director C and some officers have committed a tort to exclude the Plaintiff from participating in management in violation of an agreement that guarantees the Plaintiff as a standing executive officer for six years, and accordingly the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff as a tort or an employer, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. Article 388 of the Commercial Act provides that “The remuneration of a director shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders if the amount of remuneration is not determined by the articles of incorporation.” Thus, it cannot be deemed that the right to claim remuneration immediately arises to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 388 of the Commercial Act.

The plaintiff is specified by the articles of incorporation or the general meeting of shareholders.