약정금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The appeal cost is borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. In the first instance court of this case, the Plaintiff claimed for payment of KRW 100,00,000 and delay damages for the total amount of KRW 105,90,559 and the total amount of KRW 29,546,720, including office rents and recovery expenses, as the commission contract was terminated between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
The first instance court determined that all of the claims for penalty is reasonable, but that all of the claims for compensation is groundless, and that the amount of penalty recognized exceeds 100 million won, which is the amount of the plaintiff's claim, so the court ordered 10 million won and damages for delay as claimed by the plaintiff.
As the defendant filed an appeal and only objects to the part of the claim for penalty, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the claim for penalty against penalty among the judgment of the court of first instance.
2. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is cited by the court of first instance, shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that the reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment, except for the addition of
3. Additional determination
A. (1) As to the allegation that the termination of the instant commissioning contract is a unilateral decision based on the Plaintiff’s management judgment, the Defendant closed the instant store pursuant to the Plaintiff’s unilateral decision, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the termination of the instant commissioning contract is not a cause attributable to the Defendant, but a “a unilateral decision made due to the management judgment of the company,” and thus, Article 12(3) of the instant Commission Contract does not apply. Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay penalty against the Plaintiff.
(2) 인정사실 ㈎ 2016. 2. 신설되어 피고에게 적용되는 ABM 위임해지기준은 "보험설계사 10명 미만 재적 또는 직전 3개월 평균 1,000만...