(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.11 2017나51053

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 2018.05.11 2017나51053

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On July 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for commissioning insurance solicitors (hereinafter “instant commissioning contract”) with the Defendant around July 10, 2014.

(2) According to the appointment contract (Evidence No. 4 and No. 6) of this case, the defendant entered into a contract of this case, and was commissioned as an insurance solicitor (FP) of the defendant. <1> The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the fee calculated in accordance with the provision of the fee and the payment standards set by the defendant in return for the performance of the entrusted duties (Article 6); 2) where the contract of this case is not maintained because the contract recruited by the plaintiff is invalidated or terminated, etc., the plaintiff shall refund the fee already paid to the defendant (Article 7); 3) where the amount of the fee to be recovered due to such reasons as the termination or termination of the contract sold by the plaintiff is more than the maintenance fee, the defendant shall be dismissed, and all the fees incurred after

The defendant's dismissal notification1) as of April 2016, when a large number of the insurance contracts recruited by the plaintiff were terminated halfway, and the amount of fees to be recovered exceeds the fees to be paid, and on April 26, 2016, the defendant sent to the plaintiff on July 4, 2016 a certificate of the purport that "if the amount of fees to be recovered is more than the amount of fees to be recovered and the collection is not returned, it will proceed with the procedure to dismiss the plaintiff" to "Sisan City B" (No. 10-1-2 of the evidence No. 10-2 of the defendant delivered to the plaintiff on July 4, 2016, the defendant again sent to the plaintiff on July 4, 2016 a certificate of the purport that "the plaintiff's domicile, which is the plaintiff's apartment city, is "the plaintiff's place of residence, 3,631,096 won to be recovered until July 31, 2016."

(A) Evidence No. 1, B No. 11). 3 The plaintiff is the defendant until July 31, 2016.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.08.17 2017가단28645

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.21 2018나69754

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.28 2017가단75485

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.30 2018가단227487

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.29 2016가단5314089