1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 13, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the commission of Field Master (hereinafter “FM”) and served as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor from around that time to May 29, 2015.

B. The Defendant, as of February 14, 2014, decided that “the activity support at the early stage of the FM (2014.2.2.)” (hereinafter “instant criteria”) prepared by its affiliated business 2 headquarters and the FC business division, was implemented on February 14, 2014 for the FM delegated after February 2014.

The instant standard provides for recovery of initial activity support fees paid on the basis of the first evaluation (hereinafter “instant recovery provision”) in cases where the level received in the second evaluation is lower than the level received in the first evaluation after the first evaluation of the FM’s external introduction career in the seventh month after commission and the second evaluation in the 13th month.

C. The Plaintiff received KRW 1,062,239 on February 1, 2014, and KRW 1,144,217 on May 1, 2014 according to the grade B determined at the time of commission, and received KRW 3 as a result of the first evaluation around July 2014, KRW 3,682,414 on July 3, 2014, and KRW 2,986,506 on August 2, 2014, KRW 378,035 on September 4, 2014, and KRW 1,067,941 on October 1, 2014.

On January 2015, the plaintiff was lowered to B2 grade as a result of the second evaluation.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 5, 9, 10 (including additional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to return the initial activity support fee that the Plaintiff received after July 2014 according to the restitution provision of this case, as the result of the second evaluation, to the Defendant.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that the "Guidelines for the Payment of Fee for 2014" incorporated into the commission contract does not have the same content as the redemption provision of this case, and that the defendant did not bear the obligation to return the initial activity support fee because it did not explain the redemption provision to the plaintiff.