1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The defendant is against the plaintiff succeeding intervenor 35,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer under the Insurance Business Act that runs life insurance business, etc., and the Defendant was engaged in as an insurance solicitor from October 2014 to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 17, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded an agreement with the Defendant to refund 100% of the piece rates paid upon dismissal or termination in the first year (hereinafter “instant piece rates return agreement”).

C. Around September 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant performance rate of KRW 35,00,000 to the Defendant. On March 12, 2015, the Defendant submitted an application for dismissal to the Plaintiff on the ground of personal circumstances, and was dismissed from the Plaintiff on March 30, 2015.

On the other hand, on July 7, 2017, when the lawsuit of this case was pending, the Plaintiff and the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the transfer of all rights and obligations relating to the Plaintiff’s business to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. On November 13, 2017, the said contract for the transfer of business and the transfer of insurance contracts was approved by the Financial Services Commission, and the notification of the transfer of claims to the Defendant was made on October 30, 2019.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim and the defendant's assertion

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant was dismissed within one year from the date the Defendant was commissioned as an insurance solicitor. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, who transferred all rights from the Plaintiff, the performance-based bonus of KRW 35,00,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 30, 2016 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order in this case.

B. The defendant's assertion was inevitably demanded to dismiss the plaintiff due to the poor working environment provided by the plaintiff, and 35,000,000 won received from the plaintiff should be used as necessary expenses.