1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 17,761,968 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from January 1, 2013 to November 7, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant: (a) is a company whose business purpose is the electronic component manufacturing business; (b) around April 2012, C decided to acquire the Defendant Company from D’s former representative director D; and (c) acquired the Defendant’s shares owned by D and E on August 29, 2012.

Since then C was registered as an internal director on October 8, 2012 as the defendant's single shareholder.

B. On November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company and served as a managing director. On April 14, 2009, the Plaintiff was registered as an internal director and served until December 31, 2012.

On December 31, 2012, the representative director C of the defendant at the time of the above retirement was prepared and delivered to the defendant a detailed statement for calculation of retirement allowances which caused retirement allowances paid by the plaintiff to 30,761,968.

C. The Plaintiff, while serving in the Defendant Company, was in office with the Defendant Company, at KRW 8,00,000,000 on April 10, 2012, and the same year.

5. The sum of KRW 13,000,000 in advance payment was borrowed in the form of KRW 5,000,000.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). D.

On the other hand, on May 16, 201, the Defendant Company purchased one motor vehicle leased under the name of the Defendant Company from Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) in KRW 14,146,00, the remaining value of which was 14,146,000. The Plaintiff acquired the said motor vehicle from the Defendant Company in KRW 3,00,000 on May 15, 2012.

E. The articles of incorporation of the defendant company provides that retirement allowances shall be decided by a resolution of a general meeting of shareholders for retired executives.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 2-13, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. According to Article 388 of the Commercial Act, remuneration of a director of a stock company shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, unless the amount is determined by the articles of incorporation. Thus, retirement consolation benefits for the director of a stock company shall be paid to a person who retired from such office in return for the execution of his/her duties while in office.