1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From December 9, 2009 to December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff retired from office as a representative director of the Defendant Company (Seoul Company).

B. On December 27, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred all assets, including the Defendant Company’s shares, liabilities, and real estate, to KRW 7.3 billion and four other.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff resigned from the inside director of the Defendant Company on December 27, 2011, and D was appointed as the representative director of the Defendant Company on December 27, 2011.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Each of the parties' arguments asserted that the plaintiff is obligated to pay retirement allowance of 20,181, 656 won and damages for delay during the plaintiff's tenure of office, since the plaintiff was a representative director of the defendant company from December 9, 2009 to December 31, 201, and retired from office. Since the plaintiff was delegated with the management of affairs pursuant to Article 382 (2) of the Commercial Act, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff retirement allowance of 20,181, 656 won

The plaintiff initially asserted as the ground for claim for retirement allowance payment as an employee, and withdrawn it from the preparatory document dated August 29, 2016.

In this regard, the defendant can not claim retirement allowances since the plaintiff's officer who served as the defendant's registered director does not constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act. Since there is no fact that the defendant agreed to pay retirement allowances at a reasonable intervals or recognized that the defendant has an obligation equivalent to retirement allowances, the plaintiff's

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, on the grounds that the Defendant Company appropriated the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance obligation to the Plaintiff as a debt on the balance sheet on December 31, 201, and prepared and reported a detailed statement of the retirement allowance obligation to the Plaintiff, the Defendant approved the Plaintiff’s liability equivalent to the retirement allowance.

According to Article 388 of the Commercial Code, the remuneration of directors of a stock company shall be the amount of the articles of incorporation.