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

During the period of the Plaintiff’s work as FC belonging to the Defendant, the insurance contract entered into between E.N. and E.N. was invalidated thereafter.

Although the Defendant intended to recover fees of KRW 4,667,100 paid to the Plaintiff on the ground of the invalidation of the above insurance contract, the said insurance contract has been invalidated as a result of the Defendant’s neglecting his/her duty to maintain the insurance contract, on the ground that there was no obligation to refund fees to the Defendant for the Defendant.

2. There is no evidence to prove the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Rather, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the plaintiff signed and submitted to the defendant the "important content confirmation related to the standard for payment of fees" at the time of commission contract. According to this, the plaintiff is paid in advance on the premise that the insurance premium for two years or 13 months of the new insurance contract entered into by FC is normal, and the defendant is not paid in advance due to the invalidation, cancellation, etc., and if the insurance premium is not maintained without being paid in advance due to the reason, the amount of the pre-payment fee paid at the time of the new contract may be recovered in accordance with the 13-month or 18-month advance payment, and the amount of the pre-payment fee may be recovered in the event the invalidation contract occurs due to termination, and the defendant may recover the relevant unclaimed balance even if the relevant FC is dismissed, and the defendant shall pay the fee only when the FC is commissioned, and if the FC is dismissed, it can be recognized that there is no obligation to pay the fee.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is dismissed as it is without merit.