1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the business of selling insurance products by an insurance company, such as a future life insurance company (hereinafter “Smi”) and the Defendant was working as an insurance solicitor from January 201 to December 2012 at the Plaintiff’s B branch (the change to B branch around February 2012) (the change to B branch around February 2012).

B. On January 28, 201, the Defendant: (a) drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff on the purport that “12 million won was received; (b) agreed to work and work normally for at least three years from the commission date (based on the previous three standards); and (c) in the event of a breach of the agreement, the Plaintiff provided KRW 12 million to the Defendant several times from December 201 to May 201.

C. On January 5, 2011, the Defendant was registered as an insurance employee of the future set of insurance policies, and the above registration was cancelled on December 20, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff paid 12,00,000 won for settlement support to the defendant on condition that the defendant worked for the plaintiff company for more than three years. Since the defendant retired before three years have passed since the date of his employment, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 12,00,000 to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of this case. The defendant (2) The above KRW 12,000,000 to the defendant (the above KRW 12,00,000 to the plaintiff for the purpose of compensating for losses that the defendant was unable to receive allowances from the company accompanying the plaintiff company due to the defendant's joining the plaintiff company. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to return the above money on the ground that the defendant

② At the time of February 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from C while changing and operating C and B, which were the head of the Plaintiff’s B branch, into the form of B, and the amount was paid by the Plaintiff to the employees who worked for the Defendant and other B branch.