Remuneration for a person appointed and employed at a general meeting of shareholders where no agreement is made by the articles of incorporation or the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders;

In a case where there is no provision concerning remuneration in the articles of incorporation and there is no resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the remuneration for the position of the regular executive director under the former Civil Act shall be paid by the commercial customs, the provisions of the Civil Act or the civil law, and there is no illegality in the determination of the amount equivalent to the remuneration by the evidence.

Article 1 of the Commercial Act, Article 1 of the Civil Act

Kim Dok Kim

Korea Trucking Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na374 delivered on April 29, 1965, Seoul High Court Decision 64Na374 delivered on July 29, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

Although the contents of the judgment of the court below cannot be said to be clear, the defendant company's appointment at the general shareholders' meeting of July 22, 1958, at that time of the enforcement of the Compensation Act, to take office August 26 of the same year, but there was no provision in the articles of incorporation of the defendant company with respect to the plaintiff's remuneration dismissed to 11.17 of that year according to the temporary shareholders' meeting of September 8, 1960, and there was no resolution at that general meeting of shareholders, but there was no provision in the articles of incorporation of the defendant company with regard to the above 10,000 won which was paid 10,000 won by the defendant company's remaining office and 10,000 won which was paid 10,000 won by the defendant company's remaining office at that time. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the defendant company agreed to pay 10,000 won by the defendant company's remaining office and 10,000 won by the defendant company's remaining office.

Therefore, by unanimous opinion of all participating judges, the defendant's main appeal is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-man (Presiding Judge)