1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion has served as the representative director of the Defendant Company from 2003 to 13 October 2015, and the Plaintiff was not paid 36,628,030 won by the Defendant Company during the said period, and thus, sought payment.

2. One-to-door sales volume, and remuneration of directors shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, unless the amount is determined by the articles of incorporation;

(Article 388 of the Commercial Act). The remuneration of directors here includes all the remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties, regardless of their titles, such as monthly salary and bonus, and also includes retirement allowances or retirement consolation allowances paid in return for the performance of duties while in office.

Since this provision is a mandatory provision, a director may not claim remuneration or retirement allowance, unless there is any evidence to prove that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, time, method of payment, etc. where the articles of incorporation provides for the remuneration or retirement allowance of a director.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720 Decided May 29, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720, May 29, 201). According to the statement in the Evidence No. 7, the Defendant Company’s articles of incorporation did not separately provide for the remuneration of directors, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant Company passed a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the payment of remuneration to directors. However, according to the evidence No. 1, even though the Plaintiff was paid remuneration from the Defendant Company from 2009 to 2015, the Plaintiff cannot exercise the right to claim remuneration of directors against the Defendant solely on such circumstance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.