beta
Text
1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a notary public of promissory notes No. 404 dated 2013 written in the country of law.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On June 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a commission contract with an independent corporate body C (GA and General Agency), a corporation (hereinafter “foreign company”), which sells insurance products, and established the E branch, a branch office of D operated by the Defendant, as a subordinate insurance sales organization of the non-party company.
B. A commission agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the non-party company stipulated that the plaintiff shall be subject to the rules on the commission of the non-party company's designer (Article 2 of the commission agreement). In accordance with the rules on the commission of the non-party company's designer, the plaintiff shall pay the fee in accordance with the rules on the commission of the non-party company's designer, and shall return the collection amount to the corporate account where the fee is recovered due to the invalidity, termination, failure to maintain the contract, etc., and the fee shall be paid only during the commission period, and shall not be paid after the dismissal (Article 9 of the Rules on the Commission of
C. The Plaintiff issued, on May 4, 2013, promissory notes with the face value of KRW 50 million, the payment date of KRW 50 million, the place of issue and the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, to the Defendant for the purpose of securing damages, such as the refund of fees that may arise in the future against the Defendant in the course of the operation of the branch office E. On the same day, a notary public drafted and issued a notarial deed as to the said promissory notes (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with No. 404 with a law firm’s written deed No. 2013.
On December 2, 2013, the Plaintiff was released from the office of the head of the Defendant by closing his branch office E.
Accordingly, the defendant unilaterally closed the branch office to the plaintiff on January 2, 2014, even though the plaintiff had decided to work as the branch office of D for more than two years, the amount of damages for the recovery due to the effect of insurance, KRW 24,294,81, KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000, the expenses for the removal of the branch office, KRW 2,60,000,00,000, the expenses for the removal of the office