1. Certificates drawn up on January 29, 2015, No. 565, 2015, issued by the defendant to the plaintiff of Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office, which belongs to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded an insurance solicitation entrustment contract with a life insurance company or a non-life insurance company and run the insurance agency business and the insurance service business. The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is an insurance solicitor who entered into a commission contract with the Defendant from January 2015 and engaged in the insurance solicitation business.

B. The Defendant paid 86-93% of the total fees to be paid by each insurance company to the Defendant for the insurance contracts as mediated by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, including the insurance contracts concluded under the former jurisdiction of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor E, based on its performance on the condition that the insurance premiums will be paid in the future. If the pertinent contract is not maintained due to the invalidation, cancellation, termination, invalidation, etc., the Defendant decided to recover the fees already paid.

(A) there is a dispute between the original defendant with respect to the criteria for the recovery of fees, which shall be later stated).

In addition, the original defendant issued a promissory note of KRW 50,00,000 at the face value, which is the defendant, on November 1, 2014, to the effect that the plaintiff's joint and several liability is jointly and severally guaranteed if the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor fails to return the amount due to the non-maintenance of the insurance contract. On January 29, 2015, the original defendant drafted a promissory note No. 565 (hereinafter "notarial deed of this case").

On the other hand, among the insurance contracts concluded by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor as intermediary, the 18th insurance contracts as shown in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant non-maintenance insurance contracts”) have not been maintained, and the expected invalidation or termination was made.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 7 evidence, Eul 1, 2 evidence, Eul 8-19 through 28, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Where the Plaintiff’s insurance contract is not maintained due to the invalidation, etc., the amount to be returned to the Defendant.