All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A and Plaintiff B.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below acknowledged the following facts.

Insurance premium organizations of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (hereinafter “Defendant-Counterclaim”) consist of class structures, such as insurance solicitors (FP), middle-side insurance solicitors (SM), business-type branch offices (PBM), and branch offices (BM).

The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Plaintiff A (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) first entered into a commission contract with the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiffs would be the head of the business branch. At the time, the criteria for redemption of settlement fees at the time were dismissed within two years from the date of delegation by the head of the business branch office. However, the criteria for redemption of settlement fees at the time were recovered if the head of the business branch office is dismissed within two years from the date of conversion into the status

Before the lapse of two years, the plaintiffs and the defendant entered into each special agreement for conversion of status with the content that the plaintiffs become an intermediate insurance solicitor on the grounds of poor performance of the plaintiffs. In the process, the plaintiffs were allowed to escape from the return of settlement fees only when they should maintain their status as an intermediate insurance solicitor for two years from the time of concluding the special agreement for conversion of status.

Based on the above facts, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ assertion of invalidation, on the ground that the rules on the return of settlement fees under the above special agreement on the status conversion cannot be deemed as contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, on the grounds that the said special agreement on status conversion cannot be deemed as contrary to the good customs and social order of Article 103 of the Civil Act, with respect to the suspension

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on Article 103 of the Civil Act, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.