logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원 2015.08.19 2015나2313
손해배상(기)
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the business of selling insurance products by an insurance company, such as a future life insurance company (hereinafter “Smi”) and the Defendant was working as an insurance solicitor from July 201 to December 2012 at the Plaintiff’s B branch (the change to B branch around February 2012) (the change to B branch office around February 2012).

B. On June 27, 2011, the Defendant drafted a written agreement stating that “The Plaintiff shall receive KRW 600,000,000, and shall work and work normally for at least three years from the commission date (based on deposit money) and, in the event of a breach of the agreement, refund the said money” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. From May 201 to October 2011, the Plaintiff granted a total of KRW 3.6 million to the Defendant over several times.

On July 5, 2011, the defendant was registered as an insurance employee of the future set of insurance on July 5, 201, and the above registration was cancelled on January 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) paid KRW 3,600,000 to the Defendant on condition that the Defendant worked for the Plaintiff company for more than three years. Since the Defendant retired before the lapse of three years from the date of entry, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 3,600,000 to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant agreement. (2) Defendant (i) said KRW 3,600,000 to compensate the Plaintiff for damages that the Defendant was unable to receive allowances from the company that was enrolled in the Plaintiff company due to the Defendant’s entry into the Plaintiff company, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to return them on the ground that the Defendant retired before the lapse of three years from the date of entry.

② At the time of February 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from C while changing C and B, which were the head of the Plaintiff’s B, into the form of B and received KRW 50 million from C. The said amount was paid to the employees who worked for the Defendant and other B.