(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.10 2015나13789

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.10 2015나13789

주식매수선택권확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 2012, the Plaintiff joined the Defendant Company as the head of the Financial Accounting Team and worked until February 12, 2014.

B. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a stock option contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the following content.

The period for exercising the Stockholm option under Article 2 (Number of Stocks Issued by Stockholm) 10,000 (Period and Conditions of Exercising Stockholm) of the main contents of the instant contract shall be from March 28, 2015 to March 27, 2020, and shall be between March 28, 2015, and as of the date of exercising the Stockholm option: Provided, That in cases where B dies, retires or retires due to promotion to an executive, or retires or retires from office at the expiration of the term of office, the heir of B may exercise the Stockholm option during the period for exercising the Stockholm option; and in cases where B dies, the officer may either retire or retire from office by a resolution of the director in accordance with the articles of incorporation in the following cases:

C. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff visited E, the representative director of the Defendant, and went to the office, and thereafter did not work at the Defendant Company.

On February 20, 2014, the defendant shall be deemed to be retired ipso facto from office in any of the following cases where a member of Article 18 subparagraph 5 of the defendant's Personnel Management Regulations falls under any of the following cases on the ground that the plaintiff was absent without permission for six consecutive days:

5. If a person is absent from office for at least six consecutive days or for at least 20 days a year, the person dismissed the Plaintiff and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

In addition, on April 11, 2014, the defendant opened a board of directors to resolve to cancel the granting of stock options to the plaintiff on the ground of the plaintiff's retirement.

The plaintiff was made unfair dismissal from the defendant.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2015.04.16 2014가단218671

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.08.29 2016가합207214

-서울중앙지방법원 2010. 5. 6. 선고 2009가단232085 판결

-대법원 2008. 02. 14. 선고 2007두8423 판결

-서울고등법원 2006. 12. 07. 선고 2005누16248 판결