logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.11.16 2018가합105188
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a KOSDAQ-listed corporation that operates the development, manufacture and sale of semiconductor equipment, services for semiconductor equipment repair, export and import business, etc., and the Plaintiff is a person who was in the Defendant’s inside director from January 3, 2018 to March 30, 2018.

B. On March 30, 2018, the Defendant passed a resolution to dismiss the Plaintiff as the Defendant’s internal director by holding a general meeting of shareholders on March 30, 2018.

C. Relevant provisions, provisions concerning the removal of directors of the defendant's articles of incorporation, and relevant provisions in the defendant's articles of incorporation are as follows.

(1) Any director may be removed from office at any time by a resolution adopted at a general meeting of shareholders under Article 434.

However, in case where the term of office of a director was fixed and he is dismissed without any justifiable reasons before the expiration of such term, he may claim for damages caused by his dismissal against the company.

Article 35 (Term of Office of Director and Appointment) (1) The term of office of director shall be three years.

However, the term of office shall be extended until the closing of the general meeting where the term of office expires after the closing of the last period for settlement of accounts.

Article 38 (Remuneration and Retirement Allowance for Directors) (1) The remuneration of directors shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's 1, 4, and 8 (hereinafter referred to as "branch number") and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. A. Around May 2017, the Plaintiff dismissed the Defendant’s unfair director, who was currently outside director C, received proposals from the Defendant, using the Plaintiff’s Thailand, Malaysia, to encourage investment attraction and assistance in export business, such as pharmaceutical products, cosmetics, drones, etc., and was appointed as the Defendant’s internal director for the foregoing business, and was the Defendant’s internal director in charge of overseas affairs as the Defendant’s internal director.

arrow