1. The Defendant’s KRW 93,019,733 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 8, 2012 to June 11, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. From April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff was in office as a registration director of the Defendant, who runs the manufacturing wholesale and retail business of clothing, and was appointed as the representative director on January 20, 2012.

B. Article 35 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that the term of office of a director shall be three years after his/her inauguration. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff on August 16, 2012, which was before the Plaintiff’s expiration date.

C. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the amount of damages equivalent to the remuneration due to dismissal without justifiable grounds.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for damages caused by improper dismissal

A. According to Article 385(1) of the Commercial Act as to whether there is a justifiable reason for removal, a director may be dismissed at any time by a special resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. However, in a case where the term of office of a director is fixed and a director is dismissed before the expiration of such term without justifiable reasons, the director may claim

Here, “justifiable cause” refers to a lack of simply loss of subjective trust relationship between a shareholder and a director, such as infertility. If a director commits an act in violation of statutes or the articles of incorporation, or is considerably difficult to perform his/her duties as a mental or physical manager, an objective situation that may hinder the director in performing his/her duties as a manager should arise, such as where the director’s failure to establish or implement an important business plan, thereby loss of fundamental trust relationship with the management ability.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720 Decided May 29, 2014). The following facts are as follows, which can be recognized by the descriptions in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 11, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9. In other words, the defendant is the clothes business sector of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on July 2009.