Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurance solicitor who runs an insurance business as the agent of C (hereinafter “C”), and the Defendant is an insurance solicitor who works for the agency operated by the Plaintiff.

B. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into an implementation contract with the Defendant to recover KRW 10 million out of the subsidies immediately when the Defendant promoted within the period of mandatory service (hereinafter “instant implementation contract”) on the condition that the Defendant’s two-year mandatory work (from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019), etc. was paid to the Defendant as a total of KRW 20 million as subsidies, on condition that he/she would receive the Defendant’s two-year work (from March 1, 2017 to March 31, 2019).

On the other hand, on March 31, 2017, the Defendant entered into a C insurance designer commissioning contract (hereinafter “instant commissioning contract”) with C insurance agency.

(c)

The Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant on March 21, 2017 and April 20, 2017, respectively, according to the instant implementation contract.

(d)

On September 7, 2018, the defendant withdrawn from C.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence of Nos. 1 through 5 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence of No. 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for reimbursement of an agreed amount

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Defendant retired from the Plaintiff’s insurance agency within the two-year mandatory work period, and thus, the Defendant should return the subsidy to the Plaintiff according to the instant implementation contract.

2) Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) Company D (hereinafter “D”) around August 2018, whose financial difficulties the Defendant Plaintiff had discussed, to work together in D with the Defendant.

The recommendations were made.

Accordingly, the defendant changed its affiliation to D, and suggested conditions that D will pay 3.4 million won per month of the cost of the office maintenance as the plaintiff's office was used as D's office, and the E and the plaintiff approved it, changed the defendant's affiliation to D around September 2018, and paid D's cost of the office maintenance until March 2019.