beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the claims extended by this court are all dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit after the appeal are filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is that the following contents are added between the 10th of the first instance judgment and the 11th of the 10th judgment, and it is identical to that of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiff added a new judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff is going to know at the court of first instance as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
《제1심판결에 덧붙일 부분》 『⑥ 임원퇴직금지급규정이 유효하다면, 피고의 감사도 2배수의 지급률을 곱한 퇴직금을 지급받을 수 있다. 그런데 피고의 감사이자 C의 부인이었던 M가 2014. 7. 13. 사망하였는데도 임원퇴직금지급규정에 따른 퇴직금이 지급되지 않았다.』
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the resolution is valid since the Defendant’s holding date of the temporary shareholders’ meeting in 2012 was not December 24, 2012 but December 26, 2012, and C attended the temporary shareholders’ meeting on that day.
However, in full view of the evidence admitted in the part of the first instance judgment, the Defendant’s provisional general meeting was not held as of December 24, 2012, regardless of whether the Defendant’s provisional general meeting was held as of December 26, 2012. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the provisional general meeting was held as of December 24, 2012 is not acceptable, since it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff prepared the minutes of the provisional general meeting (Evidence A No. 4) as of December 24, 2012, as if the provisional general meeting was held, as
(A) The Plaintiff consistently asserted that a provisional shareholders’ meeting was held on December 24, 2012 at the first instance court, and it was found that C had never been in Seoul on the same day, and that it was going to be going to Seoul around December 26, 2012. However, if a provisional shareholders’ meeting was held on December 26, 2012 as the Plaintiff’s assertion, it would be difficult to understand the reasons why the Plaintiff prepared a different minutes from the fact that the provisional shareholders’ meeting was held on December 24, 2012.
The Plaintiff was dated December 24, 2012 (or December 26, 2012).