(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.04.01 2015나33346

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.04.01 2015나33346

환수금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 13, 2006, the Defendant entered into a commissioning Agreement with the Plaintiff running an insurance business, under which the Defendant is entrusted by the Plaintiff to intermediate the conclusion of the insurance contract, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay fees to the Defendant in accordance with the company fee-related provisions (hereinafter “instant commissioning Agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff prepared and applied “FP fee payment criteria” for the payment and refund (in the case of invalidity, termination, invalidation, etc. of an insurance contract) of commission to insurance solicitors, and the instant commissioning contract requires the Defendant to explain the content of the company’s fee-related provision at the time of entering into the contract.

(Article 5(2)(c) of the Commission Agreement

The Defendant mediated the conclusion of the insurance contract as shown in the separate sheet according to the instant commission contract, and was dismissed on February 24, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 2-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's attached insurance contract was invalidated. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is obligated to return limited amounts of KRW 500,000 already paid by the defendant from the sum of KRW 15,239,758 and the amount of KRW 4,679,585 to be paid by the defendant in accordance with the criteria for recovery stipulated in the contract of this case.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that only the fee related to the insurance contract (contractor B and C) listed in Nos. 6 through 8 is liable, and that the remaining insurance contract is not terminated due to the reason attributable to the defendant, so the defendant does not have the obligation to pay the fee.

3. Determination

A. Determination 1 as to the contract Nos. 2 through 9 is that the Defendant returned the recovery fees incurred due to the invalidation or termination of the insurance contract (contractor B and C) as shown in Nos. 6 through 8 is not a dispute between the parties. 2), followed, the order Nos. 2 through 5 (contractor D).

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.02.01 2017나3804

-서울고등법원 2017.10.13 2016나2068589

-전주지방법원 2016.09.06 2016가단3166

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.27 2019가단3596

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.13 2020나52278