1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, upon entering into an insurance solicitation commission contract and the dismissed Plaintiffs, enter into an insurance solicitation commission contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commission contract”), and commissioned as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor, “MP” (hereinafter “MP”) or “Seman” (hereinafter “SM”), and take charge of the conclusion of the insurance contract as indicated in the attached Table 2.

was dismissed.

The defendant's insurance solicitors have SM and MP under the branch office (BM) (BM), and BM and MP are respectively managed by SM and MP, and SM are also managed by SM and MP.

B. According to the commission agreement of this case, the item, calculation method, payment method, and redemption criteria of each fee to be paid to the plaintiffs are governed by the company regulations prepared by the defendant. Among them, the part related to this case is as shown in the attached Table 3.

BM Consultant Fee Payment Regulations (NO. 2013-1, hereinafter “BM Fee Payment Provisions”) provides for MP’s fee payment (Evidence A No. 4, and evidence No. 12-2 submitted by the Defendant appears not to apply to the Plaintiffs), and the provision on the payment of fees for BM Sals Myger (NO. 2013-1) applies to the Plaintiffs who have the status of SM among the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “the provision on the payment of each of the above fees”) (hereinafter “the provision on the payment of each of the fees of this case”), and the provision on the redemption of settlement fees and education and training expenses.

Settlement Fees and the details of the settlement fees and the details of the collection of education and training expenses calculated by the Defendant for each Plaintiff in accordance with the payment regulations of each of the instant fees are as shown in attached Table 2.

(Plaintiffs entered the details of the expected amount of recovery in the annexed sheet No. 1 of the claim, and there is a somewhat difference between the amount of recovery calculated by the Defendant and the actual amount of recovery). [The grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence No. 4, and Eul.