beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant A’s KRW 960,118,114 as well as 5% per annum from March 19, 2010 to May 10, 2013.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff’s position 1) is a company that engages in the business of mediating the conclusion of an insurance contract by entering into an insurance agency contract with multiple insurance companies and soliciting policyholders. Defendant A actually operated the Plaintiff’s “C Branch” from March 2009 to December 2, 2009, and arranged the conclusion of an insurance contract by employing a large number of insurance solicitors.
3) Defendant B and Nonparty D, as an insurance solicitor employed by the Defendant A and worked at the above branch, mediated the conclusion of the insurance contract in accordance with the direction of the Defendant A. B. The structure for the payment of insurance commission upon the conclusion of the insurance contract, where the Plaintiff concludes the insurance contract through an insurance agency under the insurance agency contract concluded with the insurance company, he/she was paid the insurance agency insurance commission
In this case, the plaintiff paid some of the insurance solicitation fees received from the insurance company to the insurance solicitors who brokered the conclusion of the insurance contract at a certain rate.
2) However, according to the above insurance agency contract, when the insurance contract becomes invalidated due to termination within a certain period, the insurance company was able to recover all or part of the insurance solicitation commission that the Plaintiff paid to the Plaintiff. (c) Defendant A’s fraud 1), while operating the Plaintiff’s “C branch”, Defendant A intended to enter into an insurance contract in the name of a person who has no intent or ability to maintain the insurance, and pay the insurance premium on behalf of another person. On the other hand, with respect to each insurance company, the insurance company should pay the insurance solicitation commission to the Plaintiff by deeming that each insurance contract is concluded and continued as the nominal owner’s intent, and accordingly, the Plaintiff was willing to receive part of the insurance solicitation commission
2. Accordingly, the defendant A has lent the name from many people from March 31, 2009 to November 20 of the same year.