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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. From December 9, 2013, the Plaintiff had been serving as an insurance solicitor at the C branch of KRB life Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”), an insurance company, and the Defendant is the head of the said branch office.

B. On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff played a leading role in entering into a business agreement (MOU) with Nonparty Company C branch and an incorporated association D (hereinafter “D”). The Defendant recognized the Plaintiff’s above contribution and decided to preferentially grant the Plaintiff the right to operate the D branch members.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 9, 11, 12, 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purpose of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had been working as an insurance solicitor of the non-party company and led the Plaintiff to conclude a business agreement with the D branch, thereby planning and developing a new insurance market, thereby creating a significant benefit for the non-party company and the Defendant’s branch.

However, the Defendant, prior to the superior position as a branch director, recognized the Plaintiff’s allowance to be paid to the minimum extent, concluded with the operator of the D branch as the Plaintiff’s performance. All contracts entered into with the operator of the D branch shall be the Plaintiff’s performance, and upon the conclusion of the contract with the operator of the E (E branchhereinafter “E branch”), the specified amount is not in accordance with the initial agreement to be given priority to the Plaintiff’s performance, but violated the Plaintiff’s business right by allowing other designers to exercise the contractual right against the above operator.

The damage suffered by the Plaintiff is ① to conclude a contract with the E branch on June 30, 2014 with another designer (425,00P x 4.3) and Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 365,50 (1,827,500 x 20%) and ② on June 30, 2014, the damage incurred by the Plaintiff by having another designer conclude a contract with G branch (1,20,000 x 4.3) and Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 1,032,00 (5,160,000 x 20%) and Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 5,160,00 (1,20,000 x 3).