A. On May 10, 2012, the Defendant was a corporation that runs the business of manufacturing devices for personal communications, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s internal director and the representative director.

B. On November 5, 2012, the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff from the representative director by the temporary board of directors opened on November 5, 2012. On November 30, 2012, an open temporary general meeting of shareholders dismissed the Plaintiff from the director.

C. Article 32 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “The term of office of a director shall be three years after his/her inauguration.”

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion was unfairly dismissed from office of representative director and director before his term of office was expired, and the defendant is liable to compensate the damage to the plaintiff pursuant to Article 385 (1) of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 5,000,000 per month, which falls under the monthly salary from December 1, 2012, to May 9, 2015, which is the date on which the period of validity expires, which is unfair dismissal to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff violated the duty of care and good faith as a director, and thus, the Defendant’s dismissal of the Plaintiff from the director is justifiable.

① The Defendant has been operating as the representative director system of the Plaintiff and C2, and the Plaintiff, who has been in charge of the overall duties at the site, brought about management deterioration consistently with the non-cooperative attitude to C.

② The Plaintiff unfairly dismissed D and E, the core part of the Gansan Factory.

③ As for the Defendant’s lawful change to the C1 representative director system in order to reduce costs and enhance business efficiency, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to pay benefits equivalent to the representative director during his/her fixed term of office, and if not, to dismiss him/her from office, and to adjust the shares held by him/her.

④ The Plaintiff is a company of the same type of business in competition with the Defendant prior to his dismissal from office.