1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff unilaterally dismissed the Plaintiff on May 30, 201 without undergoing a disciplinary procedure according to the rules of employment without prior notice of dismissal, and thus, the above dismissal is null and void. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the benefits calculated as KRW 100 million per annum from the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement. As such, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff, who was the vice president or inside director, as of May 30, 2013 without undergoing a disciplinary procedure under the rules of employment or a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders.

2. On the other hand, the defendant's assertion that the plaintiff received retirement benefits without any objection, and did not dispute the validity of dismissal before and after the time of dismissal and before the lawsuit in this case is brought against the principle of good faith, and therefore, it is not permissible to challenge dismissal against the principle of good faith.

A. Unless there are special circumstances, an employee dismissed from the employer did not withhold any objection or condition while receiving the retirement allowance, etc., the validity of such dismissal is recognized, barring any special circumstance. Thus, filing a lawsuit claiming the validity of such dismissal after a long period of time is not permissible as it violates the good faith principle or the good faith doctrine.

However, even in such a case, there are objective reasons to deem that the dismissal did not recognize the validity of dismissal and did not dispute it.

In the event of an opposing circumstance, such as the receipt of the dismissal under the circumstances where there are reasonable grounds, it shall not be deemed that the validity of the dismissal was recognized uniformly (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da21736, Sept. 24, 1993). Such legal doctrine applies likewise to cases where an officer, other than an employee, was dismissed from the company.

(b)The following facts are apparent in the records or are not in dispute, or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, 3, 4 through 8, 11, 9, 9.