beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 17, 2003, Plaintiff A was employed by the Defendant Company and retired on December 6, 201, and the department that was employed at the time of retirement is the public relations law team. Plaintiff B was employed by the Defendant Company on March 2, 199, and retired on July 31, 201, and the department that was employed at the time of retirement is the general affairs team.
B. On March 13, 2009, the Plaintiff A entered into a contract under which the stock options of 8,000 shares were granted by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant stock options contract 1”) and the main contents thereof are as follows.
Article 2 (Details of Exercise of Stock Options) The details of exercise of stock options shall be as follows:
(1) Shares subject to stock: C-registered common shares. (2) The date of granting stock options: March 13, 2009. The method of granting: The method of granting shall be determined by the decision of C when the time of exercise arrives from among issuance of new shares, issuance of treasury stocks or compensation for difference.
(4) Quantity granted: 8,000 shares (5) price: 3,455 won.
1. Stock options not exercised until the expiration of the period for exercise shall be deemed extinguished; and
Provided, That if a person retires after the expiration of the period, it shall be exercised within three months from the date of retirement.
Progress Period: From March 13, 2009 to March 12, 2011: From March 13, 2011 to March 12, 2016
2. In principle, Plaintiff A shall serve during the transitional period.
Provided, That the period of temporary retirement for not more than six months shall be included.
When a leave of absence exceeds six months, the excess period shall not be included in the transitional period, and it shall be subject to the transitional period extended due to the period of leave and the period of exercise.
B. On March 13, 2009, Plaintiff B entered into a contract under which the stock options of 6,000 shares were granted by the Defendant Company (hereinafter “instant stock options contract 2”). The content of the contract is to grant the stock options of this case except for the difference in the number of grants.