1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff ordering payment is revoked.

2. The Defendants are the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the party is a company established for the purpose of building, remodeling, repairing, and selling ships. Defendant B, C, D, E, and H around 2012 are the vice president of the Plaintiff, Defendant F are the Plaintiff’s former managing director, and Defendant G are those who worked for the Plaintiff’s regular managing director.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendants set the management goal to be achieved by the Defendants, who are executives, and set up a management contract in order to determine matters concerning the objective management and evaluation, etc., and the management contract provides that “A company means the Plaintiff.” The Defendants refer to the Defendants. The payment of piece rates based on the previous year’s performance, and the payment amount, payment time, payment method, and other matters shall be separately determined.” 2) The Plaintiff entered into an MOU with the Korea Development Bank (hereinafter “Industrial Bank”) which is the Plaintiff’s major shareholder, and the Industrial Bank made management evaluation of the Plaintiff in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in the MOU, and then notified the result, the Plaintiff paid performance rates to the executives in accordance with the MOU classification criteria as follows.

Class A C Grade D E F Grade G G: between 95 and 95-90 to 85-85-80 to 75-70-70, 100% payment rate below 100% 90% 80% 70% 70% 50% 3) Industrial Bank granted 70.91 points at normal point by evaluating the Plaintiff’s management in 2012; on May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendants the amount in each redemption column of the attached Table corresponding to the F Grade F (50% payment rate) out of the above MOU grade criteria (the Defendant E returned to the Plaintiff is the amount excluded from 10,000,000 won) as performance rates. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute over the facts that there is no number 1, 2, and 30% of the attached Table (the same shall apply to the number 1, 2000).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is to determine detailed matters concerning piece rates that the Plaintiff shall pay to executives.