A. In light of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and Gap evidence Nos. 11, the plaintiff entered into an agreement with the defendant on July 13, 2012 to commission insurance solicitation by commissioning the defendant as the insurance solicitor of the plaintiff. ② At the time, the defendant was commissioned as the person subject to excellent PA policy pursuant to the plaintiff's APP (AP) and was commissioned as the person subject to excellent PA policy, the plaintiff's commission 1 to 6th month (the 2 to 7th month on which monthly evaluation is completed), and the sum of KRW 36 million was 30,000 won per 60,000 won per month from the plaintiff's commission to the defendant at the expense of 3.5 million won per month, and the fact that the plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 per month to the defendant within 1.36 million per month from August 28, 2012, and the fact that the defendant paid KRW 36.5 million per month to the defendant by mail.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the already paid policy cost of KRW 36 million, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff's dismissal of the defendant for the purpose of recovering the policy cost, the defendant does not have any obligation to return it.

B. However, no specific assertion or evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff was unfairly dismissed.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 6-9, Gap evidence 10-1 through 3, and Gap evidence 11, and the whole purport of the arguments, the contract with the defendant is agreed to allow the plaintiff to terminate the commission contract in the case where the designer's recruitment performance, etc. falls short of the minimum criteria for the maintenance of the commission contract, and the plaintiff's qualification conditions such as the PAPA, the insurance solicitor of the general management of the PA channel.