1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The defendant is a company established for the purpose of producing, distributing, selling, etc. agricultural and fishery products, and the plaintiff served as the representative director from February 27, 2009 to March 19, 2013.

Plaintiff 300,000 38.44% of the number of directors of the 1st Chang-gun Co., Ltd. 24,766 3D 3D 3D 24,766 0.78% 4 0.78% 4 0.78% of the 38,5624.9 5 63% of the 38,562 4.95 63% of the 28,63% of the 295 3.6% of the 295 3.63% of the 28,825 6.51% of the 6.51% of the 295 - I - 8- K - 9 of the Defendant’s shares were total 780,338 shareholders, and six directors among them were the representative of the above shareholder, such as Go Chang Chang-gun-gun, the Defendant’s major shareholder.

The contents of the defendant's articles of incorporation before March 19, 2013 relating to the remuneration of directors are as follows.

Article 32 (Resolution and Composition of Board of Directors) (1) The board of directors shall adopt resolutions:

2. The remuneration of directors and auditors, bonuses, other remuneration, and retirement allowances for executives under Article 34 (Remuneration) of the decision shall be determined by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders;

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole argument by the plaintiff's Articles of incorporation, Article 32 (1) 2 of the defendant's articles of incorporation, the defendant's compensation for the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument, are decided by a resolution of the board of directors. On February 4, 2013, the board of directors decided the plaintiff's remuneration as KRW 95 million for 201 and 2012, respectively. The defendant's directors consist of the representative of the major shareholder, etc.,

In addition, the defendant's assertion that the above resolution of the board of directors is invalid according to the provisions of the Commercial Act is contrary to the good faith principle.

Therefore, the Plaintiff did not receive 30,515,000 won out of the remuneration in 2011 and 2012 from the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay 30,515,000 won and damages for delay payable to the Plaintiff.

According to Article 32 (1) 2 of the defendant's articles of incorporation, retirement allowances are as follows.