1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Establishment of a right to collateral security;

A. On January 2, 2009, the Defendant was established with the trade name “Mancom Co., Ltd.” and changed to the current trade name on October 2, 2012, and is a corporation that engages in insurance solicitation business through an insurance solicitor as a major business.

B. On May 21, 2009, the Plaintiff was commissioned as an insurance solicitor from the Defendant, and was in charge of managing team members, the insurance solicitor, etc., on the job of business (SM). On March 13, 2014, the Plaintiff was dismissed from the Defendant and retired from the insurance solicitor.

C. On June 18, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a mortgage contract with the Defendant, the debtor, the Plaintiff’s maximum debt amount of KRW 20,000,00 with respect to the Defendant’s real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Plaintiff, and completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage (hereinafter “instant collateral security registration”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached list owned by the Defendant on the same day, Changwon District Court, Kim Sea Registry of the Republic of Korea, No. 5341, Jun. 18, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 2 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The registration of the instant collateral security was completed for the sake of the guarantee of good faith after the Plaintiff joined the Defendant. However, there is no longer any secured debt that the Plaintiff left from the Defendant, and thus, the registration of the instant collateral security should be cancelled. 2) Even if the purpose of the instant collateral security registration is the redemption fee security, it should be deemed to have been terminated simultaneously with the withdrawal.

The Plaintiff did not receive an explanation on the personnel management guidelines or the management guidelines for fees at the time of the commission contract with the Defendant, and did not know the details of the contract in a lump sum with the majority. Therefore, the part on the redemption guarantee fee is invalid because it violates the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Standard Contracts Regulation Act”).

3 The fee for recovery after retirement is due to the neglect of management by the defendant.