beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff joined the Defendant on March 8, 2002 and served as a director or a representative director until August 31, 2016.
is a retired person.
Article 37 subparag. 2 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “The payment of retirement allowances to directors shall follow the rules on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers which have passed a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.” According to the Defendant’s provision on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers (hereinafter “instant provision on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers”) which was passed on March 28, 201 at the general meeting of shareholders and enforced from April 1, 2007, retirement allowances shall be calculated by multiplying the average wage at the time of retirement by three percent per year per continuous service year. The Defendant’s provision on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers shall be calculated by multiplying the average wage at the time of retirement by 47,503,172 (specific details are as indicated below)
(1) The average amount of continuous service days from March 8, 2002 to March 31, 201: 3,310: 628,271 won payment rate: 628,271 won per year x 30 days x 310 days x 365 days x 170,924,137 (2) x 170,924,137 (2) x 1,979 days to August 31, 201: 628,271 won payment rate: 628,271 won payment rate per year x 30 days 】 1,369 ± 365 ± 306,379,37537,47537,47537 : 1,407,5737,5737
B. The provision on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers of this case asserted by the Plaintiff as valid after the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders does not exist in the Defendant company, and the Plaintiff, on the Defendant’s corporate register, served as the representative director from May 8, 2002 to May 8, 2005, from September 28, 2005 to September 28, 2008, and from March 23, 2009 to July 12, 2016. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim calculated on the premise that the Plaintiff continued to serve as the representative director is unjust.
2. Officers, such as directors with executive authority of the judgment company, are delegated to handle certain affairs by the company even if they are not shareholders of the company. Thus, barring any special circumstance, a certain amount of work under the direction and supervision of the employer.