(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.27 2014가단260107

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.27 2014가단260107

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 16, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into an insurance solicitation contract with the Defendant and was acting as an insurance solicitor by the Defendant, and was paid a settlement subsidy of KRW 6.4 million from the Defendant.

B. On September 29, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed at the Plaintiff’s request. According to the Defendant’s fee payment provision (hereinafter “instant provision”), if an insurance solicitor is dismissed within 12 months, the Defendant would recover 90% of the settlement subsidy from the insurance solicitor.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry B in Evidence Nos. 1 and 2

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a standardized terms and conditions, and the Defendant did not explain the terms and conditions to the Plaintiff, which cannot be asserted as the content of the contract. Since the Plaintiff’s uniform restitution without considering the Plaintiff’s period of service or performance is null and void, the Plaintiff does not have a duty to return the settlement subsidy.

B. In full view of each of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and Eul evidence No. 3 as to the violation of the duty to explain, the plaintiff prepared and signed a written confirmation confirming that he/she had a detailed explanation and understanding of the provisions of this case on May 16, 2014 and submitted it to the defendant on May 23, 2014, and the plaintiff purchased a surety insurance to guarantee the defendant's obligation to return various kinds of subsidies (including settlement allowances) and submitted such bonds to the defendant on May 23, 2014, respectively. In light of these facts, it is difficult to view that the defendant did not properly explain the provisions of this case to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion.

C. We examine whether the defendant is an unreasonably unfavorable clause, how the defendant would pay the insurance solicitor allowances of any kind and content, and in any case recover them.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.24 2015가단5066468

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.16 2014가단84877

-제주지방법원 2017.06.21 2016나6286

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.12 2016가단5171008

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019가단5082895