beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.22 2014가합52525

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 131,438,560 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from September 23, 2014 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On August 20, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, an insurance company engaged in insurance business, such as life insurance, concluded a performance-based payment agreement with the Defendant, which is an insurance solicitor, as indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

On August 24, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff for the commission of insurance solicitation business (hereinafter referred to as “commissioning contract”) and acted as an insurance solicitor.

From August 2012 to April 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 135,736,683, in total, KRW 135,736,683, in accordance with the instant agreement, the Defendant paid the special bonus of KRW 39,92,54, monthly salary of KRW 95,814,129.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not pay 4,298,123 won out of the subscription fees to the defendant in accordance with the appointment contract payment regulations.

On April 29, 2014, the defendant terminated the commissioning contract with the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the premise of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant was dismissed from the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor on April 29, 2014, for which two years have not passed since August 20, 2012, which entered into the instant agreement with the Plaintiff, and thus, the cause of special performance and monthly performance return as prescribed by Article 7(1) of the instant agreement occurred.

Therefore, according to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay 131,438,560 won, deducting the unpaid recruitment fees to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant from the total of 135,736,683 won of the special bonus and monthly bonus already paid to the Plaintiff, and delay damages therefrom.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The defendant's defense that the compensation for severance from employment is the compensation for severance has the nature of compensation for severance from employment. Thus, the defendant's defense that the bonus paid by the plaintiff has no obligation to return it, notwithstanding Article 7 (1) of the Agreement.

However, as seen in the premise facts, the plaintiff and the defendant in the instant agreement.