1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following cases:

2. Parts to be dried;

A. From Nos. 2 to 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the two pages 14 to 15 shall be followed as follows.

C. According to the defendant's articles of incorporation, the term of office of the director is three years.

B. The fifth page of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

① As the Defendant’s managing director, the Plaintiff used the position of “CFO” externally as the Defendant’s managing director. In full view of the concept and role of the position of CFO used by an ordinary company, Plaintiff’s financial affairs and records as the Plaintiff’s financial affairs, Defendant’s size and financial status, Plaintiff’s salary level, Defendant’s treatment of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s duties, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s duties are limited to external financing business.

② On December 31, 2015, the Defendant was merely a company with a total amount of KRW 8.799 billion in total assets as of December 31, 2015, and a total of KRW 1.154 million in total amount of capital, and an executive officer who can be deemed to be in charge of financial affairs, such as accounting, accounting, fund management, and cost reduction, other than the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff asserted that his/her business is limited to the external financing business, and neglected the foregoing financial affairs.

③ As to the external financing business, the Plaintiff asserted as one’s own business, in 2014, only raised funds by means of convertible bonds, and thereafter failed to achieve particular results in the financing business. As a result, the Plaintiff failed to cooperate with existing investors, thereby causing investors’ complaints.

④ The Defendant’s limited partnership, which is an investment company, is the Defendant.