1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. In the first instance court, the Plaintiff sought the return of the advance payment fee and the payment of the Internet usage fee against the Defendant. The first instance court dismissed the request for the return of the advance payment fee and accepted the claim for the Internet usage fee.

Since only the plaintiff appealed, the subject of the trial is limited to the claim for the refund of the advance payment fee.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except where using the first instance court’s 4-7-11 written judgment as follows. Thus, this part of the basic facts is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

“C. According to the Insurance Company’s fee redemption regulation for the Plaintiff’s agent to conclude an insurance contract, in the event that an insurance contract has not been maintained for 13 months to 24 months, and has been terminated, the fees already paid to the insurance solicitor according to a certain ratio for each maintenance period. The Defendant, while acting as an insurance solicitor belonging to the Plaintiff branch, was engaged in total of 27 insurance and was paid KRW 119,121,194 from the Plaintiff. Of them, ten of them became null and void during the middle period, and thus the cause for fee recovery occurred. The instant commission contract and the subsidiary agreement on the standard for fee payment (hereinafter “instant subsidiary agreement”).

A) Fees to be recovered calculated in accordance with the methods prescribed in the Schedule are KRW 51,578,593, as stated in the “total amount of maintenance” in the Schedule in the Schedule in the Schedule in the Schedule in the Schedule in the Schedule in the Schedule in the 51,578,593

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation of the defendant since February 28, 2017, on the following day after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order, as the plaintiff seeks against the plaintiff of KRW 51,578,593 of the fee to be recovered and its scope.