1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On the premise that D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) is a subsidiary of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Co., Ltd.”) which owns 100% of stocks.

On March 1, 1993, the plaintiff joined the defendant company and served in the accounting department.

On September 30, 2010, the Defendant Company determined the workout program due to the aggravation of management status, and entered into an agreement with the credit group for the implementation of the management normalization plan.

From that time, important management matters such as sale of assets, establishment of management plan, borrowing and lending of funds, appointment of executive officers have been implemented with the consent of the Credit Council.

On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was promoted to the director in charge of the financial accounting of the defendant company, and was appointed and registered as the director after the general meeting of shareholders.

On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff was appointed as a representative director through the board of directors, and registered as the representative director.

Defendant Company failed in the workout program and started rehabilitation proceedings on December 24, 2014, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the manager of Defendant Company.

On December 31, 2015, the Plaintiff resigned from the administrator and resigned from the Defendant Company. The Defendant was appointed as the administrator.

On May 1, 2012, the Plaintiff received the settlement of retirement pay during the period of service at the time of promotion to directors.

While the Plaintiff retires from office, from December 24, 2014, to October 31, 2015, the date of commencement of rehabilitation procedures, the retirement allowance of 21.9 million won was paid as remuneration to the custodian as a public-interest claim. However, the Plaintiff failed to receive retirement allowances for the period from May 1, 2012 to the date of commencement of rehabilitation procedures, which was after the appointment of the director, on the ground that the retirement allowances were not public-interest claims but for the rehabilitation claims.

The defendant did not report the retirement allowance claim as a rehabilitation claim during the rehabilitation claim inspection period.

The Defendant Company’s rehabilitation plan was approved on February 21, 2016.

The relevant provisions of the Defendant Company’s “Rules on Payment of Retirement Allowances for Officers” are as follows:

Article 2: Executive Officers.