beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.13 2016나64717

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff and the defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance solicitation commission contract with the Defendant and dismissed Plaintiff entered into an insurance solicitation commission contract (hereinafter “instant commission contract”), and was commissioned as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor, “MP” (hereinafter “MP”), and around that time, he/she is on the job with the “Sviser” (hereinafter “SM”).

June 27, 2014.

The defendant's insurance solicitors have been SM and MP under the branch office (BM) (BM), and BM is responsible for management of SM and MP, and SM is responsible for management of SM and MP.

B. The commission contract of this case provides that the items, calculation method, payment method, and redemption criteria of each fee to be paid to the Plaintiff shall be based on the company regulations prepared by the Defendant. Among them, the part related to the instant case is as shown in the attached Form.

'2013 Fee Regulation'

(c) The details of the collection of settlement fees calculated by the Defendant against the Plaintiff in accordance with the terms and conditions of the commission in 2013 are as follows: The collection of settlement fees shall be 15,486,571 Subs Redelivery 856,571 Subs Redelivery 15,486,236,236 40,000 total 16,742,807 [the absence of any dispute, 1,5 through 7, 5-2, 5-2, 5-3, 7-2, 7-3, 8-2, and 5-3, 8, and 17-1, and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1 Plaintiff ① The Defendant forced the insurance solicitor to indicate his intention of dismissal on his own for the purpose of refunding the settlement fee after the lapse of one year from commission, which is a period for which the insurance solicitor is able to actively engage in the solicitation.

In the case of the plaintiff, the defendant is dismissed on the ground of forced consolidation of the D points that he had worked and actual performance in comparison with the preceding year.