beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company engaging in the development service business of the laboratory informatization software program.
The defendant is a person who held office as the representative director of the plaintiff from April 1, 2003 to March 22, 2005, and a shareholder who holds 90,627 shares of the plaintiff among 600,000 shares issued by the plaintiff (15.1%).
B. 1) The defendant established the plaintiff on September 5, 200, and worked as the representative director of the plaintiff from April 1, 2003. Since then on February 3, 2005, the defendant expressed his intention to resign from office as the representative director of the plaintiff's board of directors. On March 11, 2005, the new representative director C and the defendant prepared a transfer document (Evidence A 4) stating that C shall succeed to all of the defendant's claims and obligations arising while holding office as the representative director of the plaintiff. 2) The defendant resigned from office as the representative director of the plaintiff on March 22, 2005, and C newly appointed as the representative director of the plaintiff on the same day.
C. From July 2009 to August 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 2,070,000 to KRW 2,500,000 per month (excluding value-added tax) as advisory fees. The sum of the money that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff as advisory fees during the said period is KRW 200,340,00 (including value-added tax; hereinafter “the instant money”).
(hereinafter referred to as the “instant advisory agreement”) d. the oral agreement which is the cause of the said advisory fee payment.
On September 30, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail (Evidence A 8-1) stating that “The Plaintiff shall terminate the instant advisory contract as of September 30, 2015, on the grounds that the management conditions of the Plaintiff have deteriorated, as well as there is no need to receive advice from the Defendant, and no practical advisory act has been performed.” As such, the Plaintiff sent the instant advisory contract to the Defendant on September 30, 2015. (2) Accordingly, on October 6, 2015, the Defendant is in the position of the shareholder to grasp the Plaintiff’s management status.