1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and incidental appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance and the defendant's grounds for incidental appeal are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is 2.B. of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

In addition to the following cases, "a port" is used as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

B. The fact that the Defendant was recognized as having refunded solicitation fees due to non-maintenance of the insurance contract is an insurance agency exclusively entrusted with the insurance solicitation business by E Co., Ltd., and the insurance products of other domestic insurance companies may be sold in accordance with the cross-solicitation system. On September 10, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for appointment of an insurance solicitor orally with the Defendant when submitting a written confirmation of insurance agency employees (qualified persons) and entered into a contract for appointment of an insurance solicitor with the Defendant. An insurance agency affiliated with the Defendant (including appointment as an insurance solicitor of E Co., Ltd. as of September 10, 2013 while serving as a qualified person) and was commissioned as an insurance solicitor of other insurance companies around that time

However, on February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff retired from the Defendant’s agency on the grounds of personal circumstances, and around that time, the Plaintiff prepared and notified a dismissal certificate to insurance companies including E Co., Ltd., and revoked the eligibility as an insurance solicitor of E Co., Ltd. on March 15, 2017, and on March 7, 2017, the eligibility as an insurance solicitor was revoked.

If an insurance solicitor, such as the Plaintiff, who belongs to the Defendant, sells insurance products to customers and concludes an insurance contract with each insurance company, the Defendant received the sales commission for the ordinary three years from the insurance company, and then aims to maintain the insurance contract to the Plaintiff, who is the insurance solicitor.