beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff was commissioned as an agent designer (FA; hereinafter “designer”) of the Plaintiff Company C (hereinafter “instant insurance agency”). The Defendant is a director of the instant insurance agency, who owns 100% of the shares as an internal director of the instant insurance agency.
B. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) commissioned the Plaintiff as a designer; and (b) concluded a contract to commission affairs, such as brokerage, maintenance, and management of the conclusion of the insurance contract; (c) was paid KRW 30 million in total from the insurance agency during the period from October 24, 2013 to January 3, 2014 (hereinafter “instant settlement support”); and (d) was paid on January 3, 2014 on the premise that “30 million won in the instant settlement support is engaged in long-term activities as a designer for at least two years from January 3, 2014; and, if a cause, such as early dismissal within two years, the said settlement support shall be refunded to the insurance agency” (hereinafter “instant implementation note”).
C. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note, which is each Seoul Special Metropolitan City, to the Defendant on May 31, 2014, and the place of payment at the place of payment at the place of payment at the place of issuance, and on the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed recognizing that there is no objection even if he/she is subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's summary of the claim insurance agency commissioned the plaintiff as a designer without notifying the plaintiff that the representative defendant was involved in the insurance fraud case and was in a situation where the business should be discontinued. The plaintiff is the same as the insurance agency of this case.