(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.13 2020나52278

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.13 2020나52278

기타(금전)

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following amount shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2013, the Defendant entered into an insurance designer commission contract with the Plaintiff and served as an insurance designer, and was promoted on June 26, 2015.

B. According to Article 7 of the appointment contract between the original defendant and the payment criteria for the plaintiff prepared pursuant to the delegation, where the defendant withdraws his/her subscription to an insurance contract, or causes for cancellation or termination of the invalidation thereof, the defendant shall refund the fee received from the plaintiff on the premise of the existence of the insurance contract. The same applies where the grounds for the refund of the fee arise after the termination

(c)

The Defendant’s fee to be returned to the Plaintiff is KRW 8,726,142 as shown in the attached Form, which is the total of KRW 7,877,073 by December 13, 2017.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition of the duty to return the fee, the Defendant is obligated to return the fee (=8,726,142 won - 7,877,073 won) to the Plaintiff.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the fee to be paid to the Plaintiff at the time of the promotion was set at KRW 7,877,073, and that the Plaintiff’s claim was unfair, since all of them were paid.

However, as seen earlier, the fee to be refunded by the Defendant is KRW 8,726,142 (the difference in two amounts arises in relation to the termination of the insurance contract in the name of C, and the above insurance contract was terminated on June 2017, which was subsequent to the Defendant’s promotion.

The defendant shall return the fee, and the defendant's argument is not accepted.

2) The Defendant extinguished the obligation to return fees due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the company.

The argument is asserted.

However, the obligation to return fees shall be deemed to take place only when the cause for the return of fees arises, such as the termination of the insurance contract.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.13 2020나52278

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.05 2019가단3602

-서울남부지방법원 2018.11.29 2017나63106

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.31 2016가합15476

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.06.20 2017가단7145