2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) entered into a commission contract with the Defendant around June 2014, and the Nonparty Company paid KRW 15,000,000 to the Defendant, but the Defendant faithfully performed the commission contract for two years from June 2014 to May 2016. If the Defendant terminates the above commission contract without permission or is subject to disciplinary dismissal within two years, the Defendant agreed to return the above subsidy KRW 15,000,000 to the Nonparty Company. Around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant.

B. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant sent a certificate of content to the non-party company, the non-party company, the non-life insurance association, etc. to the effect that the contract for commission concluded with the non-party company is terminated due

C. On November 2, 2015, the Plaintiff comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations of the non-party company by absorbing the non-party company.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the defendant terminated the commission contract without the consent of the non-party company even after two years have not passed since the commission date. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff who comprehensively acquired the claim for the return of the subsidy to the plaintiff of the non-party company the amount of KRW 15,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from May 24, 2017 to the date of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the defendant asserts that the defendant is not without permission upon the consent of the representative of the non-party company, and submits each written statement (No. 2, No. 5-1, No. 5-3) in D, E, and F, but each of the above written statements is merely a fact that the defendant and the representative of the non-party company frequently performed the termination of the defendant's commissioning contract. Thus, the defendant is merely a non-party company.