Of the attached list 2, the part of the corrective order shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be applied.

1. Regarding the legitimacy of the corrective order stated in the attached list No. 1 (ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 2), the lower court presumed that the first ground of appeal includes not only the person who directly implements the sale, but also the person who supports and manages the sales of the multi-level marketing organization's class and subordinate assistant salesmen, based on the legislative intent of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (wholly amended by Act No. 11324, Feb. 17, 2012; effective from Aug. 18, 2012; hereinafter "Door Sales Act") and Article 2 subparag. 2 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act (hereinafter "door Sales Act") and the fact that the "door-to-Door seller" is defined as the "person who performs the door-to-Door sales business on behalf of the door-to-Door Sales Business Operator," but also the person who is subject to the authority of the head of the door-to-Door sales organization's position and assistant salesman's position at the stage of sales, and the Plaintiff still does not meet its position.