logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.10.07 2015나2039140
보험설계사 해촉처분 무효확인 등
Text

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' claim

A. The Plaintiff A is an insurance solicitor belonging to D (hereinafter “D”) G branch, and Plaintiff B is an insurance solicitor belonging to H branch of FF (hereinafter “F”). The Defendant allocated the Defendant’s insurance solicitor code to the Plaintiffs, applied to the Non-life-insurance association for the registration of the Plaintiff B’s insurance solicitor, and made the Plaintiffs intermediate the conclusion of the insurance contract under the name of the Defendant. Thus, the consignment relationship between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant regarding the solicitation of insurance contracts was established, and the Plaintiffs are in the status of the Defendant’s insurance solicitor to the extent that the Plaintiffs perform the insurance solicitation business for the Defendant.

However, the defendant dismissed the plaintiffs as the defendant's insurance solicitor, in violation of Article 85-3 (1) 3 of the Insurance Business Act or Article 29 (3) 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Insurance Business Act, by applying for cancellation of the plaintiffs' insurance solicitor registration to the non-life insurance association, and cancelling the insurance solicitor code assigned to the plaintiffs, on the formal grounds of violation of the law of violation of law of the plaintiff A (violation of the title of the solicitor and the duty of explanation), various civil petition filing and interference with business, violation of law of the plaintiff B (violation of the title of the solicitor and the duty of explanation)

The above dismissal of the insurance solicitor against the defendant against the defendant does not take effect as illegal, and the plaintiffs still are in the defendant's insurance solicitor's position. The plaintiffs claim that "the plaintiff's insurance solicitor belonging to defendant C D and the plaintiff B confirmed that they are in the insurance solicitor belonging to defendant E branch." The meaning of the whole purport of the pleading is to seek confirmation that the plaintiffs are in the defendant's insurance solicitor's status.

The plaintiffs' claims are interpreted and judged as above, and the plaintiffs' respective insurance agencies are presumed to be the defendant's branch.

arrow