1. Plaintiff B and the Defendant on April 5, 2013 regarding the termination of a contract for the commission of insurance solicitation between the Plaintiff B and the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a foreign insurance company known as “A”-based (AI) life.

On April 5, 2013, the Plaintiffs concluded an insurance solicitation commission contract with the Defendant respectively.

The Plaintiffs were engaged in the brokerage, maintenance, management, etc. of the conclusion of insurance contracts, and the Defendant paid to the Plaintiffs a fee, such as a settlement fee, according to the monthly performance.

The Plaintiffs were dismissed on June 27, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant demanded the full amount of settlement fees paid to the Plaintiffs (Plaintiff A19,082,954, Plaintiff B16,742,807, Plaintiff C13,620,518).

B. The Defendant’s provision on the payment of fees (N.O. 2012-1) (hereinafter “2012 fee provision”) provides that “The payment of fees shall take effect from January 1, 2012, and the full amount of settlement allowances already paid shall be recovered at the time of dismissal of the first year of the shooting (hereinafter “SM”), and the 30% of the settlement allowances paid at the time of dismissal of the 13 and 14th month (Article 9) shall be recovered (Article 9). ② The 2013 fee provision (N.O. 2013-1) provides that “The 2013 fee provision shall apply to a person who was dismissed from his office from January 1, 2012 (hereinafter “SM”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 2, 3 evidence, Eul 2-1, Eul 3-1, Eul 4-1, Eul 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The plaintiffs' assertion (1) The defendant's assertion that the insurance solicitor is entitled to actively engage in the soliciting business, and (1) the defendant is entitled to receive the return of the settlement allowance after the expiration of the period of one year from commission by the insurance solicitor.