2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the head of the subsidiary headquarters C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), which is an insurance sales agency, and the Defendant is an insurance solicitor.

B. On March 21, 2017, the Defendant, upon the Plaintiff’s request, retired from Korea to the Vice-Center C and had been on duty, received KRW 6,000,000 from the Plaintiff around the said time. At the time, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with the face value of KRW 6,00,000,000 and the issue date as of March 21, 2017.

C. After that, on July 24, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the purport that “the Defendant dismisss the insurance solicitor code against the Defendant on grounds that the Defendant does not engage in an insurance business for a long time,” and around July 27, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that “the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,00,000 of subsidies to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant works for two years from C to C, and the Defendant issued and delivered the said promissory note to the Plaintiff in return for the promise regarding the said subsidies. Since the Defendant did not properly meet the agreed period, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,00,000 for subsidies.”

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D, other insurance solicitors, seeking reimbursement of KRW 10,000,000 for the same reasons as the Defendant (hereinafter “related case”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, Eul's 2, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion

A. On March 21, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,00,000 to the Defendant on the condition that he/she would work as an insurance solicitor for two years from Cbucheon Headquarters to which he/she belongs, and the Defendant issued and delivered a promissory note of KRW 6,000,000 in face value to secure the aforementioned conditional subsidy agreement.

However, since the defendant did not properly meet the above contract period and accordingly dismissed the insurance solicitor code around July 24, 2018, the defendant is obligated to return the above subsidy amounting to KRW 6,000,000 to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion.