logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.12.21 2017가합533506
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2013, the Defendant was established as C Co., Ltd. in 1957 for the purpose of selling ready-mixed and other building materials, construction of housing, etc., and was ordered to commence rehabilitation procedures in Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter “Rehabilitation Court”) in the case of 2013 Ma186, and was decided to authorize rehabilitation procedures on March 21, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant implemented the rehabilitation plan on February 3, 2016, by implementing the rehabilitation security right and most of the rehabilitation claims, such as early performance of repayment obligations.

B. On April 15, 2015, according to the decision of the rehabilitation court, the Plaintiff was appointed as the Defendant’s custodian by setting the term of office as of April 14, 2017. On December 28, 2015, the term of office was three years from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018, and the Defendant’s representative director and internal director was permitted to be appointed as the Defendant’s representative director and internal director.

C. On December 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was dismissed from office as a representative director through a resolution of the Defendant’s board of directors, and on March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff was dismissed from office as a director.

On the other hand, since January 1, 2016, the Plaintiff was performing duties in the position of the Defendant’s representative director and the president, but the Plaintiff was dismissed at the board of directors on December 27, 2016, and did not actually perform the company’s duties.

Accordingly, on February 2, 2017, the Defendant adjusted the Plaintiff’s remuneration (basic pay) from KRW 15 million per month to KRW 3 million per month based on the basic salary of outside directors, and notified the Plaintiff.

E. Article 37 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “The remuneration of directors shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, and the retirement allowance of directors shall be determined separately.”

arrow