1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a corporation whose purpose is insurance agency business, etc., and the plaintiff is an insurance solicitor belonging to the defendant from September 15, 2005 to September 7, 2015.

B. From November 200, the Plaintiff served as an insurance solicitor of the Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd. as the insurance solicitor of the Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., and around September 15, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into an agency designer contract (AFC) with the Defendant, an exclusive corporate agent of the above insurance company, and retired from employment under the Defendant’s jurisdiction.

C. After concluding the instant commission contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff served as an insurance solicitor belonging to the Defendant until September 7, 2015, and received fees and allowances from the Defendant regarding the conclusion and maintenance of the insurance contract, such as new contract fees, maintenance fees, performance reporters, etc. based on the Plaintiff’s insurance contract performance, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 4, 14 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the instant commissioning contract, the Plaintiff did not prepare a commission contract (Evidence B No. 5) as alleged by the Defendant, and did not receive such a contract from the Defendant, and that the Defendant’s representative director paid the fees for maintenance (contract management) after dismissal.

In addition, the plaintiff did not know whether there is a provision related to the defendant's own maintenance fee, and he did not hear or receive a detailed explanation of the complicated fee-related regulations and terms and conditions reached 70 pages from the defendant at the time of the commission contract of this case.

Until June 2015, the Plaintiff recruited new policyholders as insurance solicitors belonging to the Defendant, and even though the insurance contracts attracting by the Plaintiff have been maintained until now, according to the commission contract from October 2015 to the date.