1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims corresponding to the revoked part are asserted.

1. The reasoning for this part of the underlying facts is as follows, and the reasoning for this decision is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except for partial revision as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Each " July 27, 2015" of the 2nd 16th 16th and 3th 1st 201 in the judgment of the first instance shall be considered as " July 29, 2015".

E. 4 pages of the first instance judgment.

The paragraphs are as follows:

“E. E died on August 16, 2016. Plaintiff A is the spouse of E, and Plaintiff B and C are children of E. The Plaintiffs received KRW 67.8 million of retirement pension calculated within the scope of the Defendant’s amended articles of incorporation after E’s death.

2. The reasoning for this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the court's reasoning is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The Plaintiffs filed a claim for unpaid benefits on January 1, 2010 and February 2010, but the first instance court rejected the claim in entirety. Moreover, the Plaintiffs’ claim for unpaid benefits and the claim for unpaid benefits from August 2015 were partially dismissed. However, the Plaintiffs did not appeal against the judgment of the first instance. Accordingly, the claim for this part is excluded from the subject matter of the judgment of this court.

Article 388 of the Commercial Act provides that "The remuneration for directors shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders unless the amount is determined by the articles of incorporation."

The remuneration of directors referred to in this article includes all the remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties, regardless of the name of the monthly salary or retirement allowance, and the remuneration for retirement or retirement allowance is also a kind of remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties while in office.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720, May 29, 2014). Since the foregoing provision is a mandatory provision, a director may exercise the right to demand remuneration, barring any evidence to prove that there was a resolution by the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, payment method, and time of payment of remuneration for a director.