beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a performance-based payment agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant, under certain conditions on the premise that the Defendant entered into an commission contract with the Plaintiff for soliciting insurance contracts, with the Plaintiff, to pay the instant contract amount by combining SF and MB. The instant contract amount is separate from the commission that the Plaintiff would pay in return for efforts on the gender and maintenance of the insurance contract. In addition to the commission that the Plaintiff would pay in advance a certain amount of money on the premise that the insurance solicitor would achieve a certain performance in order to attract an outstanding insurance solicitor (hereinafter “instant agreement”).
According to the agreement of this case, if the Plaintiff is unable to meet the pre-determined criteria, such as the commission period, the maintenance rate of the insurance contract, and the fulfillment of the standard performance after the Plaintiff was commissioned as an insurance solicitor by the Defendant as an insurance solicitor, the Plaintiff returned all or part of the contract amount from the Defendant.
B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded an insurance solicitation commission contract on April 23, 2012, and the Defendant was acting as the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor from April 23, 2012 to May 29, 2014.
C. Pursuant to the instant agreement, from April 25, 2012 to October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 115,074,240,000 under the name of SF, and KRW 56,00,000 under the name of MB, in accordance with the instant agreement.
On April 29, 2014, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a written application for the dismissal of an insurance solicitor by content-certified mail, and reached the Plaintiff on May 2, 2014, and the Plaintiff treated that the said commission contract concluded with the Defendant was terminated on May 29, 2014.
However, if the defendant fails to meet 70% of the base achievement rate set at the time of the agreement of this case, 50% of the performance amount paid in the second year and the third year.