1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff served as a non-registered director in the Defendant Company from July 1, 2012 to February 28, 2015, and served as a registered director and a joint representative director from February 28, 2015 to May 12, 2016. Meanwhile, at the time of retirement of the Plaintiff, the fact that the Plaintiff owned 30% of the shares of the Defendant Company and the joint representative directorD owned 70% of the shares at the time of retirement does not conflict between the parties, or that the fact that the Plaintiff owned 30% of the shares of the Defendant Company, and that the joint representative director D owned 70% of the shares at the time of retirement of the Plaintiff can be recognized in full view of the respective entries in subparagraph 1, 9, and

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company is obligated to pay retirement allowances to the Plaintiff during the period from July 1, 2012 to May 9, 2016, and that the Plaintiff did not pay KRW 47,051,266 out of the retirement allowances. The Plaintiff claimed payment against the Defendant Company.

B. 1) According to Article 388 of the Commercial Act, the remuneration of a director of a stock company shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders when the amount is not determined by the articles of incorporation. Thus, in a case where retirement consolation benefits for the director of a stock company are paid to a retired person from his office in compensation for the performance of duties while in office and are included in remuneration under Article 388 of the Commercial Act, and the articles of incorporation, etc. provide that a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders concerning the amount, payment method, payment period, etc. of the director's remuneration or retirement benefits shall not be exercised (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da25123, Dec. 10, 2004).