The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. On the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s measures to recover the above amount was unjustifiable, on the grounds that the part of KRW 10,217,146 (the portion recovered on the grounds of “documents failure expenses, automatic transfer, unclaimed for not more than 90 days, termination within 90 days, and receipt of TM customer complaint center,” which was already recovered by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Defendant”) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) was based on the sales policy table issued by the Defendant each month.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the above 10,217,146 won is based on the sales policy table issued every month to the Plaintiff after setting the standards for the payment and recovery of incentives, and the above sales policy table can be evaluated as embodying Article 5 (Regulations on Management of Sales Target) of the instant consignment contract. Accordingly, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the interpretation of the terms and conditions

B. The lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant ex officio terminated the contract for the service of 66 lines on the ground of a mobile phone opening by the theft of name at the time of the original adjudication, and determined that based on Article 3(4)1 of the instant consignment agency agreement, the Plaintiff was liable to return KRW 33,937,00,00 which the Plaintiff received the above 66 lines of opening.

The judgment below

(1) Article 3(4)1 of the Entrustment Agency Agreement, which provides the basis for the judgment of the court below, does not contain any provision excluding its validity, as it was concluded with the original defendant’s intent.