Plaintiff

Sicacom Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Cho Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

September 7, 2010

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da232085 Decided May 6, 2010

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

At the same time, the defendant shall receive KRW 9 million from the plaintiff, and at the same time deliver to the plaintiff the share certificates representing 15,000 won shares of ordinary share issued by the defendant to the plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. cite the judgment of the first instance; and

The reasons for the court's explanation on this case are as follows: "The defendant asserted that the Stockholm option of the plaintiff was cancelled by the resolution of the board of directors, inasmuch as Article 340-4 of the Commercial Act is a mandatory provision and no exception is provided under the former Securities and Exchange Act, unless it satisfies the minimum requirements for employment," but considering the purport of the provisions of the Commercial Act and the former Securities and Exchange Act as seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that Article 340-4 of the Commercial Act prohibits any early relaxation of the minimum requirements for employment through the company's articles of incorporation and the contract for granting stock options between executives and employees of the company and the company, and even if it is a mandatory provision prohibiting this, it is reasonable to interpret the above provisions of the Commercial Act as stated above in light of the overall circumstances such as balance between the interpretation of the former Securities and Exchange Act and the former Securities and Exchange Act, it is difficult to accept the defendant's assertion that the defendant renounced the Stockholm option of the case at the time of retirement, and thus, it is difficult to acknowledge the remaining evidence of the plaintiff's remaining evidence and evidence presented.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Su-cheon (Presiding Judge)