1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the court's determination as to the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of

[Judgment on Preliminary Claim] The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay remuneration and its delay damages from July 1, 2016 that the defendant was dismissed from the defendant's director to November 7, 2016.

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

Where the above provision is a mandatory provision and the articles of incorporation provide for the remuneration of directors by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, time, method, etc. of payment, directors may not claim remuneration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da25123, Dec. 10, 2004; 2012Da98720, May 29, 2014); and directors bear the burden of proving that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da213308 Decided September 10, 2015). In light of the relevant legal principles, according to the Defendant’s articles of incorporation, Article 32 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation recognizes the fact that “the remuneration or retirement allowance of an executive officer who retired or resigned shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders” may be acknowledged, but there is no evidence to prove that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the amount, time, method of payment, etc. of the Defendant’s remuneration, the Plaintiff, a director of the Defendant, cannot claim

I would like to say.

Therefore, the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the plaintiff's primary claim shall be dismissed.