beta
Text
1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff is below against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
Reasons
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. The facts following the facts are either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 15, 17 through 20 (if there are numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).
The plaintiff is a person who has worked as an insurance solicitor at the D point located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Seoul, and the defendant is a person working as an insurance solicitor belonging to the Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s money transaction 1) concluded an insurance contract with the Defendant via the Defendant from around 2013 to around 2015, and from around July 2015, the Plaintiff paid the insurance premium in the form of a designer’s visit fee (the relevant insurance solicitor would receive the insurance premium from a policyholder). During this process, the Plaintiff paid the amount of the insurance premium to the Defendant, and the Defendant paid the insurance premium for the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff transferred money from around August 2014 to July 2015 to KRW 10,000 from around 10,000 to around 40,000, as well as from around 176,000 to around 50,000 won, to the Defendant and paid the money from the Defendant.
3) On July 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant as investment money, and paid KRW 25,000,000 to the Defendant on September 15, 2014 as the principal of investment and profit-making. The Plaintiff was the Defendant’s seat, E, F, G, H, etc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant, etc.”) who was either wired money in the name of investment money to the Defendant or agreed to lend money to the Defendant upon the Defendant’s request.
(4) The said monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was made on July 28, 2014.