The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a company running real estate leasing business and warehouse business. The Plaintiff was appointed and served as the Defendant’s director (in-house director from August 16, 2009) from August 16, 200, and then resigned on July 21, 2015.

B. Article 33 of the Defendant’s articles of incorporation provides that “The remuneration of an executive officer or retirement allowance of an executive officer who retired shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On December 30, 2006, the Defendant decided to approve the provision on retirement allowances to pay four times retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act in a case where the number of executives working at a temporary general meeting of shareholders is not less than four years (hereinafter “resolution of the instant general meeting of shareholders”). Accordingly, according to the resolution of the instant general meeting of shareholders, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff whose number of executives working for not less than four years is equal to not less than four times retirement allowances under the Labor Standards Act, at least 518,648,01 won, as well as delayed damages therefrom.

B. Defendant 1) did not have passed a resolution on the instant general meeting of shareholders concerning the retirement allowance provision.

2) Even if the existence of the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders of this case is recognized, the plaintiff was the defendant's representative director at the time of service

Since there is a tort of occupational embezzlement and breach of trust in collusion with C and thereby causing damage to the defendant, if the defendant offsets the plaintiff's retirement allowance claim against the plaintiff with the defendant's compensation claim, there is no retirement allowance to be paid by the defendant.

3) On July 21, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit only after three years have elapsed since the Defendant retired from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement benefits expired due to the lapse of the statute of limitations.

3. Determination

A. Article 388 of the Commercial Act provides that “The remuneration of directors shall be determined by the articles of incorporation.”