The defendant shall pay 363,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from August 27, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 11, 2010 for the purpose of the sports clothes business, etc., the Plaintiff was established as a company with capital of KRW 100 million, and from the time of its establishment to the date of its establishment, the Defendant is a joint representative director, each in-house family accident, and E is an inside director.

Defendant, D, and E own the Plaintiff’s shares at the rate of 50%, 25%, and 25%, respectively.

B. From April 25, 2014 to July 16, 2019, the Defendant received a total of KRW 363,00,000 from the Plaintiff as remuneration.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. In the event that the plaintiff files a lawsuit against the defendant who is one of the joint representative directors, the defendant, the joint representative director, and D, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff pursuant to Article 394(1) of the Commercial Act, but the defendant and D, the joint representative director, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed

B. However, according to the records, while filing the instant lawsuit on August 20, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the appointment of a special representative with this court on the same day (a Government District Court Decision 2019Kao10181). Pursuant to Article 394(1) of the Commercial Act on November 1, 2019, where a company files a lawsuit against a director, the auditor represents the company. Since the total amount of the Plaintiff’s capital is less than one billion won, the Plaintiff did not appoint an auditor as a special representative pursuant to Article 409(5) of the Commercial Act, the Plaintiff made a decision to appoint a lawyer as a special representative pursuant to Article 409(5) of the Commercial Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for the correction of the indication of the Plaintiff’s representative as “Special Attorney B” and the Plaintiff’s representative corrected it as the said special representative.

Therefore, the defect alleged by the defendant is legitimate through the appointment of the special representative.