logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.10 2017나59194
임금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in the following 2.1. Thus, this is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The second to fourth of the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the first instance judgment's ground of appeal No. 1-d. 1) shall be cut to and added to the second part as follows.

D. At the time when the budget bill for the year 2016 was prepared, the Plaintiff did not separately instruct the Plaintiff to include the special retirement allowances in the budget bill, signed as the representative director on the above budget bill, which was signed by the Defendant’s parent company C, and explicitly known the contents of the budget bill including the special retirement allowances for the Plaintiff as the president of the general meeting of shareholders at the time when the above budget bill was approved at the general meeting of shareholders. Meanwhile, Article 17 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “the representative director shall be the president of the general meeting of shareholders.” Meanwhile, the Defendant’s budget bill for the year 2016 containing the special retirement allowances for the Plaintiff was approved at the general meeting of shareholders, as it was, at the general meeting of shareholders, after the Defendant’s general meeting of shareholders or other meetings, there was no resolution to reverse the Defendant’s special retirement allowance payment policy for the Plaintiff, and there was no evidence to deem that there was a separate resolution of the Defendant’s general meeting

On the other hand, Articles 388 and 415 of the Commercial Act provide that remuneration of directors, etc. shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders if the articles of incorporation does not provide for the amount of remuneration of directors, etc., and does not necessarily require a resolution by presenting it as an independent agenda in determining the remuneration of directors, etc. as a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders. Thus, the budget bill

arrow