logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.08.31 2015가단59379
급여 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. From June 18, 2013, the Plaintiff began to serve as the Defendant’s director and retired on June 30, 2015.

B. From July 2013 to December 2013, the Plaintiff’s salary is set at KRW 2 million each month, and from 2014, the Defendant agreed to increase the Defendant’s management status. However, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 2.8 million totaling KRW 1 million on September 1, 2013, KRW 300,000 on January 301, 2014, KRW 100,000 on October 1, 2014, and KRW 50,000 on February 5, 2015.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid benefits of KRW 45,200,000 and the retirement benefits of KRW 4,000,000 after deducting the paid benefits from the total benefits of KRW 48,00,000 for 24 months.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to Article 388 of the Commercial Act, remuneration for directors of a stock company shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders when the amount is not determined by the articles of incorporation. The "compensation for directors" mentioned above includes all remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties, regardless of the name of monthly salary, bonus, etc., and retirement allowances or retirement consolation benefits paid as compensation for the performance of duties while in office.

(1) In cases where the articles of incorporation, etc. provide that the director’s remuneration or retirement allowance shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the director’s right to claim remuneration or retirement allowance may not be exercised unless there is any evidence supporting that there was a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the payment method of the amount, payment method, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da25123, Dec. 10, 2004). B.

위 법리에 비추어 살피건대, 증인 C의 일부증언(믿지않는 부분 제외) 및 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 원고가 C, D, E과 함께 가마솥밥 기계를 제작, 판매하는 사업을 하기로 하되, 원고는 영업을 맡기로 약정한 사실, 주식 지분은 처음에 내부적으로 D와 E 각 10%, 원고 15%, 나머지 65%는...

arrow