1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim for director’s remuneration, and thus, the same is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the claim for director remuneration

A. On October 19, 2017, all shareholders of the Defendant Company including the Plaintiff’s assertion and C have agreed to pay KRW 4,000,000 per month to the Plaintiff to be appointed as director of the Defendant Company as remuneration, and the Plaintiff was appointed as director of the Defendant Company on November 23, 2017.

In doing so, on December 29, 2017, the Defendant Company paid the Plaintiff the monthly remuneration of KRW 8,000,000 for two months, and did not pay the Plaintiff’s remuneration any more. On April 2018, the Plaintiff was employed as a director of the Defendant Company before the Plaintiff was appointed as a director of the JA (hereinafter “instant research institute”).

Therefore, the Defendant Company is obligated to pay the Plaintiff remuneration of KRW 12,00,000 from January 2018 to March 2018, and the delayed damages therefrom.

2) The Defendant’s remuneration to be paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant’s assertion is merely remuneration for the development of prototypes, and does not constitute remuneration for the performance of duties as a director.

In addition, there is no fact that the general meeting of shareholders of the defendant company resolved the plaintiff's remuneration of 4,00,000 won per month.

Even if the Defendant Company resolved on the Plaintiff’s remuneration of KRW 4,00,000 per month, insofar as the Plaintiff received the remuneration of KRW 4,000,000 per month from March 2018 at the instant research institute, the Plaintiff’s claim for remuneration after March 2018 is unreasonable.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 6 (including each number), and the overall purport of testimony and alteration of Eul’s testimony and alteration, the following circumstances, namely, ① F, C, D, and E, on October 19, 201.