1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. The Plaintiffs’ retirement allowance payment provision under the Plaintiffs’ retirement allowance payment provision under the Defendant’s retirement allowance payment provision provides that the representative director shall pay a retirement allowance according to the calculation of “annual average amount of total salary received for three years retroactively from the date of retirement 】 1/10 】 (if there is a monthly number of months or less, it shall be deemed one month) 】 working period (if there is less than one month, it shall be deemed one month) ± 12 】 (representative: 3) 】 payment rate. The above provision was duly held on June 10, 2014 and approved at a temporary general meeting of shareholders. 2) Even if there is no resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on the payment provision of retirement allowance for officers, even if the Defendant was actually one company of Plaintiff A at the time of enactment and amendment of the rules on the payment of retirement allowance for officers, it may be deemed that there was a resolution of the

3) Therefore, in accordance with the retirement allowance payment provision for executives, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff A retirement allowance of KRW 173,965,80 [=148,056,00 per annual average conversion amount for three years] ¡¿ 1/10 】 47 months (from March 2013 to January 2017) ± 12 x 3] and delay damages therefor, and to pay the Plaintiff B a retirement allowance of KRW 20,736,50 (annual average conversion amount) x 1/10 x 10 x 10 months (annual average conversion amount) ± 12 x 33 and delay damages therefrom, respectively.

B. Plaintiff B’s assertion of retirement allowance under the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act was made from February 2, 2014 to June 15, 2016 when the Defendant was appointed as the Defendant’s representative director, and served as an employee under the Labor Standards Act that provided labor under specific instructions from Plaintiff A, the representative director of the Defendant, and the Defendant is calculated in accordance with the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act and the Labor Standards Act.