1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is that the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment, except where the “examination designer” under the fourth 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as an “insurance solicitor”. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420

2. Determination

A. The main point of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the instant insurance contract recruited by the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor was null and void as a result of receiving a civil petition. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 25,471,960, which was paid to the Plaintiff as the fee for the instant insurance contract pursuant to Article 4 of the Rules on the Payment of Allowances.

B. (1) Whether the instant monetary refund provision was incorporated into the instant commissioning Contract (A) Whether the instant monetary refund provision was incorporated into the instant commissioning Contract (A) In order to seek the refund of the commission against the Defendant, the instant monetary refund provision should be incorporated into the contents of the instant commissioning Contract, and thus, the said provision should be first examined.

(B) A commission contract used at the time of the instant commission contract constitutes a standardized contract under Article 2 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”), in which the Plaintiff prepared a certain form to conclude a commission contract with a large number of insurance solicitors, and the contents of the contract are printed in the same text, and thus,

Article 2 of the instant commissioning Contract only provides that “The payment of various allowances shall be made pursuant to the provisions prescribed by the Plaintiff,” but does not provide clear provisions on the recovery of the fees that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff.

(C) Meanwhile, even if the terms and conditions subject to the obligation to specify and explain under Article 3 of the Terms and Conditions Act are important matters, if the customer or his/her agent is well aware of, or have been in common and common to transactions and thus, it could have been sufficiently anticipated by the customer without any separate explanation, such matters.