1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company running real estate leasing business and warehouse business, and the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s representative director on August 16, 200 while he was appointed as the Defendant’s director on March 18, 1994, but resigned on January 10, 2017, and was dismissed from the Defendant’s office on February 3, 2017.

B. Article 33 of the Articles of incorporation of the Defendant Company provides that “The remuneration or retirement allowance of an executive officer who retired shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 6, Eul evidence 8, 9, 10, 15 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant Company, based on Article 33 of the Articles of incorporation, is deemed to be a resolution of the first general meeting of shareholders on the date of non-existence of the date before 2006 (hereinafter “resolution”).

A) The provision on the payment of retirement allowances for executive officers to six times of retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “instant retirement allowance provision”) based on the number of employees’ retirement allowances.

In cases where the number of executives working at a general meeting of shareholders on December 30, 2006 exceeds four years, a resolution to pay a retirement allowance equivalent to four times the retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act (hereinafter “resolution of the second general meeting of shareholders”) is to be made (hereinafter “resolution”).

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a retirement allowance of at least KRW 1,597,159,244 equivalent to four times the amount of the retirement allowance under the Labor Standards Act to the Plaintiff, whose number of employees worked for at least four years according to the instant retirement allowance provision or the resolution of the second general meeting of shareholders. 2) Even if the instant retirement allowance provision or the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the payment of the retirement allowance for officers does not exist, the Defendant’s payment of the retirement allowance to the Plaintiff is not permissible against the good faith principle.

B. The defendant company adopted a resolution of the first general meeting of shareholders.