1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 11, 2009, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s representative director, and resigned on May 30, 2017.

B. According to the Defendant’s articles of incorporation at the time of the Plaintiff’s employment, remuneration for executives or retirement allowances for executives were determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders (Article 33). At the time of the Plaintiff’s resignation, the Defendant company did not provide for the payment of retirement allowances for executives, and there was no resolution of the general meeting of shareholders

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 8-10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a retirement allowance of KRW 96 million (the average monthly salary of KRW 12,000,000 for three months prior to his retirement x the number of days of president’s position 2942/365) and damages for delay. 2) The Plaintiff’s current representative director C of the Defendant Company invested more than KRW 400,000 in the Defendant Company as the Defendant Company’s representative director, and contributed significantly to the growth of the Defendant Company while working as the Defendant Company’s representative director. The Defendant’s refusal of payment of retirement allowances without recognizing the Plaintiff’s contribution on the ground that there was no provision in the articles of incorporation or

B. Officers such as directors, auditors, etc. of a related law firm are delegated by the company for certain business affairs. Thus, the employer’s direction and supervision does not exist in an employment relationship that provides a certain amount of work and receives a certain amount of wages, and therefore, even in the case of receiving a certain amount of wages, they cannot be deemed as wages under the Labor Standards Act. Even in the case of paying a retirement allowance to an officer such as a director, etc. under the company’s regulations, the retirement

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da61312 Decided February 23, 2001, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64681 Decided September 26, 2003, etc.). According to Article 388 of the Commercial Act, Article 38 of the Commercial Act is applicable.