1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff falling under the subsequent order of payment shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is about the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 2-C.

In addition to the amendment as follows, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【Modification Part】

C. 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 unless the amount is determined by the articles of incorporation.”

The remuneration of directors referred to in this article includes all remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties, regardless of the name of a monthly salary, bonus, etc., and retirement or retirement allowance is also a kind of remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties while in office.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720 Decided May 29, 2014). Accordingly, in cases where the articles of incorporation provide that a director shall pay a retirement allowance to a director, a director may claim a retirement allowance against the company.

Facts of recognition

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 9-1, 2, and Eul evidence 13-1, 2, 3, and Eul evidence 2 as a whole and the purport of the whole arguments.

(1) With respect to retirement allowances, the articles of incorporation of the defendant provide the following:

However, there is no employee retirement allowance payment provision in the defendant after the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

Article 36 (Remuneration for Directors and Retirement Allowance) (1) The payment of retirement allowances for directors shall be made by the regulations on payment of employee retirement allowances which have undergone a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

(3) The retirement allowances under the preceding paragraph shall be at least the amount prescribed in the Minimum Labor Standards Act.

② On April 30, 2015, the Defendant issued a withholding receipt for wage and salary income of KRW 12,200,000 to the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff had earned income from KRW 12,20,000 while working in the Defendant from January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015.”

③ In the case of occupational embezzlement, etc. against the Plaintiff, C, the Defendant’s actual representative director.