1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the instant claim ① The Plaintiff established the Defendant Company, which was a juristic person, while engaging in the business of manufacturing and selling industrial cooling and freezing equipment in the name of “D” on the land outside C and two parcels of Pakistan, and transferred all rights and obligations regarding the instant business to E, the present representative director of the Defendant, around October 201.

② After that, the Plaintiff served as an executive officer (in-house director and representative director) registered in the Defendant Company from November 1, 201 to March 4, 2014, and the Plaintiff was not paid 98,00,000 won (in-house 3,50,000 won per month x 28 months) and retirement allowance 8,198,58,583 won during the said period, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of the said amount, 106,198,583 won, and delay damages.

2. Determination

A. 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 if the amount of remuneration is not determined by the articles of incorporation.” Article 382(2) of the Commercial Act provides that the relationship between the company and the director shall apply mutatis mutandis the provisions concerning delegation of the Civil Act. Thus, even in the absence of a provision concerning the payment of remuneration,

(Article 686(1) of the Civil Act provides that “In the absence of any special agreement, a mandatary may not demand remuneration from a mandator.” (b)

According to the evidence No. 1, the remuneration of the director of the defendant company is determined by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and it is recognized that the articles of incorporation stipulate that the retirement allowances of the director shall be paid according to the rules of payment of retirement allowances

However, according to the statements in Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including partial numbers), it is recognized that the shareholders' general meeting of the defendant company did not make a separate resolution on the directors' remuneration or retirement pay during the period for which the plaintiff seeks to pay remuneration, and the articles of incorporation, etc. provide that the directors' remuneration scheme shall be determined by the resolution of the shareholders' general meeting on retirement pay.