A. On October 15, 2012, the Defendant entered into a commission contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant commission contract”) and was commissioned as an insurance solicitor of the Plaintiff, and performed duties such as brokerage of concluding an insurance contract and maintenance and management of the insurance contract for the Plaintiff.

B. The provisions pertaining to the termination of a commissioning contract of this case are as follows.

Section 2 of Article 13: A company may terminate a commissioning contract with a designer by written notification even during the commissioned contract period, and may not terminate this contract with a designer unfairly for reasons other than those under any of the following subparagraphs:

Subparagraph 1: Subparagraph 6 omitted: Paragraph 3 where the recruitment performance, etc. of a designer falls short of the minimum standard for a commission contract: If the company terminates a commission contract pursuant to paragraph (2), the company shall hold a prior interview with the designer concerned and obtain his/her signature with the consent of the designer subject to termination.

For a person who is unable to hold an interview due to the interruption of contact, etc., his/her signature shall be substituted by sending a letter of guidance on termination of the commissioning contract to the final address notified by the designer to the company.

C. In addition, according to attached Table 4 of the Plaintiff’s “PA Channels General Management RGP Regulation (Evidence 7)”, which provides for the criteria for qualification maintenance of insurance solicitors, etc. belonging to the Plaintiff, the “PA minimum standard for qualification maintenance” is “Monthly 3,600,000,000” and is prescribed to take the following measures in the event of falling short of the standard items:

Determination on warning or dismissal of a non-performance warning for three consecutive months for a period of two consecutive months (the relevant BM decision)

D. However, since February 2013, the Defendant did not have any recruitment performance for three consecutive months, and the Plaintiff attempted to hold an interview with the Defendant for the termination of the instant commissioning contract, and the contact with the Defendant would not be contacted.