[2] The meaning of "the act of imposing an obligation to collect money or goods, etc." prohibited under Article 24 (1) 4 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act and "the act of imposing an obligation to purchase goods, etc." prohibited under Article 22 (1) of the same Act

1. As to the legitimacy of a corrective order listed in attached Table No. 1 (Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2)

(1) As to ground of appeal No. 1

In full view of the legislative purport of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; enforced on August 18, 2012; hereinafter “Door-to-Door Sales Act”), Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Regulations System and the Door-to-Door Sales Act provides that “door-to-Door sales workers” are “persons performing door-to-door sales business on behalf of door-to-door sales business operators”, the lower court held that the salespersons of the multi-level sales organization as stipulated under Article 2 Subparag. 5 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act include not only persons directly performing the sales, but also those who support and manage the sales directly for the smooth implementation, sustainable expansion, etc. of multi-level marketing, and that the class of the Plaintiff’s sales organization is comprised of one-level design engineer, sub-level branch manager, sub-level branch manager (hereinafter “designer, etc.”), three-level branch manager, and sub-level salesman’s performance in charge of the Plaintiff’s sales.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of salespersons of a multi-level marketing organization as prescribed by Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Door-to

(2) Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

This part of the grounds of appeal is a new argument for the first time in the final appeal, and it is not a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, Article 2 subparag. 7 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act provides that "door Sales under Door-to-Door Sales Act shall meet the requirements of multi-level marketing under Article 2 subparag. 5 of the same Act with respect to "door Sales under Door-to-Door Sales under Door-to-Door Sales Act," and that "this refers to a case where a specific salesperson's performance of purchase, sale, etc., affects only the bonus of one salesperson who is immediately superior, as prescribed by Presidential Decree." Thus, the requirement of "door Sales under door-to-Door Sales Act" and "multilevel sales under Article 2 subparag. 5 (b) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act should be met," and therefore, it is reasonable to view that there is no need to consider whether the performance of a specific salesperson's purchase, sale, etc., affects only the bonus of one person immediately superior to the sales unit." Therefore, even if the Plaintiff's ground of appeal is satisfied.

2. As to the legitimacy of the corrective order as stated in the Attached List No. 2 (Ground of appeal No. 3)

Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act provides that "No multi-level marketing business entity shall impose a burden on a prospective multi-level marketing salesperson or a multi-level marketing salesperson in excess of the level prescribed by Presidential Decree, such as excessive purchase of goods, etc., subject to the application of the standards for paying bonuses that are registered, qualified, or advantageous to the multi-level marketing salesperson." Article 24(1) provides that "no person shall commit any of the following acts by using a multi-level marketing organization or any similar organization that is comprised of persons who have joined a multi-level marketing organization or any similar step-by-stage member." Article 24(1) provides that "any person shall not engage in any of the following acts by doing money transaction without the transaction of goods, etc. or by pretending the transaction of goods, etc., which falls under any of the following acts" ( Subparagraph 1) and "any of the following acts committed by a person who intends to become a sales salesperson or a prospective sales salesperson, regardless of its name or form, such as subscription fees, sales assistance, individual allocated amount, education expenses, etc." Article 24(1).

In light of the language, text, and structure of the relevant statutes, a violation prohibited under the former part of Article 24(1)1 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act refers to “any monetary transaction without any transaction of goods, etc...” and “the act of imposing an obligation to collect money or goods, etc.” prohibited under Article 24(1)4 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act refers to imposing upon a salesperson an obligation to pay money or goods under any pretext no less than a certain level under any condition, regardless of the purchase of goods. On the other hand, Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act prohibits “the act of imposing a burden on the purchase of goods, etc.” refers to the act of requiring a salesperson to achieve purchase records of goods above a certain level under the condition that the criteria for payment of support allowances are applied to the registration, maintenance of qualification, or favorable support allowances (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do62

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Plaintiff is the head of the branch office if the designer pays KRW 2 million, and the head of the branch office pays KRW 3 million, and if the designer pays KRW 5 million, the Plaintiff is implementing the promotion system that can immediately become the head of the branch office.

Examining the above facts in light of the relevant legal principles, the Plaintiff’s above promotion system does not require the fulfillment of purchase records of goods above a certain level, and thus does not constitute “the act of imposing burden, such as purchase of goods” prohibited under Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act.

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that this part of the corrective order was lawful to order the prohibition of imposing liability based on the above provision’s disposition, on the premise that the Plaintiff’s promotion system constitutes a violation of Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of Article 22(1) of the Door-to-Door Sales Act

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the corrective order stated in the attached Table No. 2 is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

[Attachment] List: omitted

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)