The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Under the so-called nominal director or auditor, who legally has the status of director or auditor of a corporation, but does not perform substantive duties as director or auditor pursuant to an express or implied agreement with the company, is also a corporate corporate body, and provides the foundation necessary for the company to establish and act as a social entity, as well as bears the authority and duties under the Commercial Act, and bears the responsibility for breach of such obligations, is not different from the general director or auditor. Thus, barring special circumstances, barring special circumstances, such as the appointment of a director or auditor as a means to pay the company funds to individuals in the form of payment of excessive remuneration, the right to claim remuneration is not denied solely on the ground of nominal director or auditor.

B. In full view of the evidence, the lower court determined that, as long as the Defendants were registered as directors and auditors pursuant to an agreement with D and received remuneration from them, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants constitute unjust enrichment on the ground that there is no legal ground for the Defendants’ remuneration, even if they did not properly perform their duties as directors or auditors, the Defendants did not constitute unjust enrichment.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned judgment on unjust enrichment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.