1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Company was established on March 8, 200 as a company engaging in manufacturing and wholesale and retail business of glass recycling materials, and the Plaintiff was appointed as an inside director of the Defendant Company on November 11, 2014, but retired on November 11, 2016.

B. The articles of incorporation of the defendant company states that “the term of office of the director shall be two years (Article 24)” and “the remuneration and retirement consolation money of the director and auditor shall be determined at the general meeting of shareholders (Article 26).”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant Company worked as an internal director from November 2014 to March 2017, and worked for at least four days a week from March 2017. As the Defendant Company paid the benefits from November 2014 to October 2015, and the amount paid on March 2016, the Plaintiff sought payment of unpaid benefits of KRW 67,276,064 (=16 months x 4,204,754, 16 months x 4,754, and 12,614,262 (=3 years x 4,204,754) and retirement allowances of KRW 79,890,326.

3. If the articles of incorporation does not specify the amount of remuneration for a director, the remuneration shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

(Article 388 of the Commercial Act). The remuneration of directors here includes all the remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties, regardless of their titles, such as monthly salary and bonus, and also includes retirement allowances or retirement consolation allowances paid in return for the performance of duties while in office.

Since this provision is a mandatory provision, a director may not claim remuneration or retirement allowance, unless there is any evidence to prove that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, time, method of payment, etc. where the articles of incorporation provides for the remuneration or retirement allowance of a director.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720, May 29, 2014). The instant case’s health care unit and health care unit, and the Defendant Company’s articles of incorporation provide remuneration for directors.