beta
Text
1. A notary public shall be the plaintiff on the basis of the bill No. 872, 2014 No. 872, a deed drawn up on April 10, 2014.
Reasons
1. The following facts of recognition are not disputed between the parties or may be admitted by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 to 4 (including a serial number).
On April 2014, the Plaintiff was commissioned as an insurance solicitor belonging to the Busan Branch of the Defendant (the Global Deposit Korea Insurance Agency, Co., Ltd.) for the purpose of primary insurance agency business.
B. At the time, the Plaintiff was paid the Defendant the settlement subsidy calculated based on the monthly subscription performance for insurance from April 1, 2014 to March 2016. As to the lump-sum settlement payment and the return of the settlement subsidy, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of payment guarantee as shown in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant payment guarantee letter”) with regard to the return of the settlement payment and the settlement subsidy. On the other hand, the Plaintiff issued, on April 4, 2014, a promissory note payable at sight, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the place of issue, the place of payment, and the place of payment, respectively, at a face value of 30,000,000,000,000 at face value for securing the return. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed stating that there is no objection to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed”).
C. Meanwhile, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 3,620,690,000 from April 3, 2014 to August 2015, including the payment of KRW 10,000 in lump-sum settlement payment on April 3, 2014.
2. Determination
A. One party’s assertion as to the occurrence of a settlement lump-sum payment and the obligation to return the settlement subsidy is only required to return the settlement lump-sum payment and the settlement subsidy only when the sales performance or the number of insurance coverages are less than a certain standard. Since the Plaintiff’s sales performance or the number of insurance coverages exceeds the standard set forth in the instant payment undertaking, the Defendant is above the Defendant.