logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.02.06 2018가단250055
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted that he was the head of the D branch office Co., Ltd., which was the Plaintiff, introduced the Defendant who worked as an insurance solicitor in E at the time from the insurance solicitor affiliated with the first police officer in September 2014, and had the Defendant attract the insurance contract.

Where the effect of the insurance is lost, such as the cancellation of the contract on the ground of a violation of the duty to explain, etc. of the contract, the cancellation of the insurance contract as an insurance solicitor, or the termination of the insurance contract by the policyholder, etc., the defendant shall recover the fees paid to the insurance solicitor of the insurance product, depending on whether the insurance becomes void after the payment of several times of the insurance premium.

Attached Form

As stated in the insurance statement, eight insurance products, the effect of which is lost by the Defendant’s insurance contracts, as described in the insurance statement, are to be recovered by the Defendant as the fees that the Defendant had already received, and the amount already recovered is to be KRW 1,723,361, such as KRW 13,047,806 (i.e., KRW 14,71, KRW 167 - KRW 1,723,361). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the total fees not recovered to the Plaintiff and pay damages for delay.

2. In order to accept the Plaintiff’s principal claim for judgment, the existence of an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on commission contracts and recovery of commission fees. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1, the Defendant entered into a commission contract with C Co., Ltd., which is not an individual of the Plaintiff, from December 16, 2014, and performed its activities as an insurance solicitor from that time on December 16, 2014, and the Defendant was found to have issued a performance guarantee insurance policy regarding “liability to return commission to an insurance company” as the insured, and otherwise, entered into a commission

agreement on the recovery of commission or commission.

arrow