1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs as to the allegations at the appellate court, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and Article

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion in the appellate trial

A. The Plaintiffs asserted that the instant retirement benefit provision was amended to lower the payment rate of retirement allowances than the existing retirement allowances at the temporary shareholders’ meeting held on January 10, 2008 according to the pointed out in the process of tax investigation in 2007, and that it was not an urgent provision for the payment of retirement allowances to the Plaintiffs.

B. According to the evidence evidence No. 2, since D enacted a retirement benefit provision that sets forth the payment rate of retirement allowances for officers on February 15, 2005, the first amendment was made on February 20, 2006, and the second amendment was made on January 10, 2008 (the instant retirement benefit provision). At the time of the second amendment, for the representative director at the time of the second amendment, the number from 30 to 25 times of the total amount of annual salary before the retirement; for the representative director, from 20 to 10 times of the total amount of annual salary before retirement; for the representative director, from 20 to 10 times of the total amount of annual salary before retirement; for the representative director, from 15 to 10 times of the total amount of annual salary before retirement; for the director, the president, and the managing director, it can be recognized that the five times of the total amount of annual salary before retirement was maintained as it is.

However, as seen earlier, the instant retirement benefit provision was amended at the temporary shareholders’ meeting held on January 10, 2008, which was held from March 31, 2009, when the Plaintiff A, B, and P were retired, and one year prior to the withdrawal of the said Plaintiffs, and D merely paid approximately KRW 12 million through KRW 30 million to other executives, such as former Q, Trade R, directors, and advisory T on January 31, 2009, and two months prior to the retirement payment, and only paid KRW 12 million to the retirement payment to the above Plaintiffs, U, V, W, directors X, etc.