logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.08.19 2014나14456
손해배상(기)
Text

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.

Reasons

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 April 201 to December 2012 at the Plaintiff’s B branch (the change to B branch around February 2012) (the change to B branch office around February 2012).

B. From March 2011 to August 201, the Plaintiff issued a total of KRW 3.6 million to the Defendant over several times.

C. On April 15, 2011, the Defendant was registered as an insurance employee of the future set of insurance policies, and the said registration was cancelled on December 20, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) paid 3.6 million won to the defendant as the settlement support expense. The defendant agreed to refund the settlement support expense to the plaintiff when he retires from the plaintiff company before the lapse of 3 years. Since the defendant retired before the lapse of 3 years from the date of entry, the defendant is obligated to return 3.6 million won to the plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement. The defendant (2) The above 3.6 million won is for compensating the plaintiff for the damages that the defendant had entered the plaintiff company and could not receive the allowance from the company that had entered the company before the expiration of 3.6 million won from the date of entry. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to return the above money on the ground that he left the company before the expiration of

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 branch. The amount is calculated based on the total sum of settlement support payments paid by the Plaintiff to the employees who worked for the Defendant et al., and thus C acquired the right related to the settlement support payments from the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the return of settlement support payments against the Defendant.

arrow