1. The Defendant: KRW 24,776,150 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from March 21, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a multi-level marketing operator subject to the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc., and B is a former member of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is a multi-level marketing salesperson who was admitted to the Plaintiff Company.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to pay a certain amount of sales commission upon purchasing the Plaintiff’s goods. The Plaintiff also paid allowances to the superior seller for the goods purchased by assistant salesmen.

B. C, a member of the Plaintiff, requested approval of KRW 1,234,567,890 for the purpose of confirming the method of settling the price of goods through the Plaintiff’s computer network, and made payment by his own credit card. In fact, even though only KRW 12,345 was erroneous, it was treated as a normal settlement due to an error in the settlement system, and the settlement approval number was assigned.

C. From November 4, 2013 to February 28, 2014, B, using the above approval number, acquired goods by means of applying for the purchase of goods on behalf of the Defendant or the Defendant’s assistant salesman, and received sales payment in relation to the purchase of goods.

The Defendant also received KRW 24,776,150 as sales allowance in the process of receiving sales allowance in the above manner.

B was convicted of a criminal fact that he/she acquired goods equivalent to KRW 1,142,187,145 from the Plaintiff by means of the approval number unfairly conferredd as above, and acquired them by deception and received KRW 310,834,930 as sales allowances while purchasing the goods.

(Reasons for recognition), Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, and Gap evidence 31, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant received KRW 24,776,150 as sales allowances in relation to the purchase contract that B had induced the plaintiff as above.