On November 6, 2012 between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff was paid from the defendant according to the contract for commissioning insurance solicitation.

Facts of recognition

On November 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance solicitation contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commissioning contract”) and received KRW 3,100,000 as a settlement subsidy from the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant settlement support”). Of the Defendant’s fee payment provision (N.O. 2012-1) (hereinafter “instant fee payment provision”), Article 27 Subparag. 3 (hereinafter “instant provision”) is as follows.

If a person is commissioned to be dismissed within one year from the date on which he/she was commissioned, the full amount of the initial settlement allowance already paid shall be recovered. In such cases, the recovery of early settlement allowance, except education allowances, shall be 10% of the initial settlement allowance at the time of the dismissal, and 5% from the time of dismissal, due to a cause attributable to the failure to properly perform his/her duties, such as guidance, supervision, etc., on the part of the person who was commissioned to be dismissed, the Plaintiff shall recover 10% of the initial settlement allowance at the time of the dismissal, and 5% from the BM at the time of dismissal.”

On February 21, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a written request for dismissal to the Defendant on February 21, 2013, and the instant commissioning contract was terminated on March 28, 2013.

On May 27, 2013, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return KRW 2,635,00 (hereinafter “instant refund”) equivalent to 85% of the instant settlement subsidy based on the instant provision.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 5, Eul 1, Eul 1, 3, 4, and 5's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the purport of the whole pleadings was failed to hear the explanation of the provision on the payment of the fee of this case at the time of the commission contract of this case, and the plaintiff did not receive the provision on the payment of the fee of this case. Rather, if the education satisfies certain performance conditions, the subsidy was provided, so there was no obligation to pay the refund of this case to the defendant.

As stated in the Defendant’s letter of confirmation, the Plaintiff’s fee payment provision at the time of the instant commission agreement.