1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 82,96,034 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from May 15, 2014 to October 16, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 1, 2007, the Plaintiff became an executive director as of October 1, 2013 and retired on April 30, 2014.

B. In the case of executive officers, the defendant company separately provides "the retirement allowance rules for executive officers" and the provisions pertaining to this case are as follows.

Article 2 [Definition of Officers] (1) The term "executive officers" means directors and auditors appointed at a general meeting of shareholders, who are full-time directors. (2) Full-time directors appointed and appointed by the representative director.

(i) Article 5 [Retirement Allowance] (1) When an executive retires, an amount calculated according to the rate of payment of retirement allowances for the following executives shall be paid as retirement allowances:

3. Executive Director: For each year of his/her service, 3.5 months’ worth per month. (2) Where an executive is reappointed, he/she shall not be considered as his/her retirement, and the calculation of his/her retirement benefits shall be paid when he/she actually retires after

C. When calculating the retirement allowance of the Plaintiff, who is an executive director, according to the above retirement allowance provision, the amount is KRW 4,800,000 for monthly wage of 117,60,000 x 3.5 months x 7 years of service.

On the other hand, the Defendant paid 34,003,966 won as retirement allowance to the Plaintiff on August 2, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 6 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 82,96,034 won after deducting the retirement allowance of 34,003,966 won, which was paid at the retirement allowance of 117,00,000,000 won according to the officer retirement allowance rules, and damages for delay.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant argued that since the plaintiff forged the minutes of the regular general meeting of shareholders and the retirement allowance regulations for officers without authority, the provisions of the retirement allowance for officers of this case are null and void.