1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing devices for personal communications, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s internal director or representative director on May 10, 2012, and the Defendant’s temporary board of directors on November 5, 2012 is dismissed from office as the representative director. On November 30, 2012, the Defendant is dismissed from office as the inside director at the Defendant’s temporary general meeting of shareholders.

B. Article 32 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “The term of office of a director shall be three years after his/her inauguration.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 and 4 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. As the Plaintiff’s assertion was dismissed without justifiable grounds before the expiration of the term of office of the Plaintiff’s representative director or internal director, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the remuneration that would have been paid if the Plaintiff had worked until May 9, 2015, which was the initial representative director and internal director’s expiration date, pursuant to Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act, i.e., the amount equivalent to KRW 500,000 per month from December 1, 2012 to May 9, 2015.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not have an intention to hold office in the defendant as follows, and that the defendant violated the duty of care and loyalty as a director, thus dismissing the plaintiff from office is either accepted the plaintiff's request or there is a justifiable reason.

Therefore, the defendant does not bear the obligation to compensate for damages caused by dismissal of the plaintiff.

① The Defendant had no choice but to change the C1 representative director system in terms of cost reduction, etc. due to the aggravation of financial status, and in the process, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the office of representative director.

However, the plaintiff neglected to perform his duties after being dismissed from the office of the representative director, and demands in writing that "the plaintiff maintains the same benefits as those received at the time of being employed as the representative director during the prescribed term of office" to the defendant.