1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court has used for this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the pertinent parts as follows. As such, it refers to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 32(1)2 of the above articles of incorporation provides that “The remuneration and retirement allowance of an executive shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders” of the fifth sentence of the first instance judgment shall be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Article 34(1)2 of the above articles of incorporation) and deleted on March 19, 2013 (see, e.g., the first page of the preparatory document dated June 9, 2015), February 4, 2013, February 26, 2013, February 26, 2013, and March 11, 2013.”

(b)in the following cases, in the fifth sentence of the first instance court, the following shall be added:

The Plaintiff asserted that, “A,” the remuneration payment proposal passed by the resolution of February 4, 2013, was presented to the said board of directors, and that, the High Chang-gun also agreed to the payment of the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the High-gun proposed to the board of directors for the payment of the remuneration that “the payment of the Plaintiff was made in the year 201 and 2012 by fixing the payment of the performance rate to KRW 95 million.” Rather, according to the evidence No. 4, the Plaintiff’s opinion on the performance rate payment to the Plaintiff was opposed to the Plaintiff, and there was an objection by the Go Chang-gun against the Plaintiff on the payment of the remuneration proposal requested by the Plaintiff (see the portion of the Defendant’s statement on the performance rate payment to the Plaintiff, which appears to be a public official of the Chang-gun), and without reflecting the intention of the Chang-gun, the High-gun also passed by the resolution of the Defendant’s director, not the Defendant’s representative.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is the head of Chang Chang-gu.