1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The scope of the judgment of this court requested the Defendant to recover the settlement fees of intermediate insurance solicitors paid to the Defendant on the ground of the occurrence of the cause for recovery, 1/2 of the settlement fees of intermediate branch office, the settlement fees of the project branch office, and the performance fees of intermediate branch office and the insurance solicitor of intermediate branch office. The judgment of the court of first instance recognized only the recovery of the settlement fees of intermediate branch insurance solicitors, the performance fees of the project branch office and the insurance solicitor of intermediate branch office (the additional subsidy) and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the recovery of 1/2 of the settlement fees of the project branch office. Since only the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the said lost part, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the recovery of 1/2 of the settlement fees of the main branch office of the project branch office.

2. The following facts are recognized in full view of each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 10 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 (including additional numbers), or the purport of the entire pleadings, in the absence of dispute between the parties to the determination of the claim for recovery of 1/2 out of the settlement fees for the head of the branch office:

A. From December 29, 2010 to May 31, 2012, the Plaintiff engaged in insurance business, etc. entered into a contract between the Defendant and the head of the future three branch office, under which the Plaintiff would commission the Defendant as the head of the so-called preliminary branch office (PBM,rere Bacher, and hereinafter “business type branch office”). From December 1, 2010 to May 31, 2012, the Defendant worked as the head of the Plaintiff’s branch office B.

B. The Defendant’s business branch office was given the same level of authority as the head of the store office. The Plaintiff paid KRW 7 million per month to the Defendant with the settlement fee from the first to the 18th month of delegation.

C. On August 4, 2011, the Plaintiff changed the criteria for the payment of fees for a branch office with a type of business, and the Defendant consented thereto. The changed key contents of the above criteria are as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as the "Criteria for Payment of Fees in this case"). (1) The head of a branch office for a project shall delegate two years.