1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2006, the defendant employed the plaintiff as an insurance solicitor of the defendant company (FP, Fincial Pact) and agreed to pay remuneration according to the plaintiff's performance of duties.

B. On July 24, 2009, the Gyeongnam Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Gyeongnam Bank”) and Korea Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Capital”) received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) regarding the Plaintiff’s insurance solicitor’s claim against the Defendant as claims for respective loans, etc. against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant paid KRW 1,013,089 to the Gyeongnam Bank on June 26, 2009 among the Plaintiff’s remuneration claims according to the instant seizure and collection order.

C. On September 18, 2009, the Plaintiff filed an application for individual rehabilitation with the Ulsan District Court 2009Da13044 on September 18, 2009. Accordingly, on September 21, 2009, the said court issued the Plaintiff’s creditors, such as the Bank of Chungcheongnamnam and the Republic of Korea Capital Capital, with an order to suspend compulsory execution, etc., and issued the order to commence the rehabilitation procedure against the Plaintiff on October 26, 2009, and decided to authorize the repayment plan on May 27, 2010.

On the other hand, the defendant paid KRW 2,656,968 to Gyeongnam Bank in accordance with the seizure and collection order of this case on October 28, 2009, and KRW 2,165,606 to Gag Capital, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the repayment plan was approved in the rehabilitation case of Ulsan District Court 2009Hun-Ga 13044, Ulsan District Court 2009, and the seizure and collection order of this case became null and void. Thus, the defendant's assertion that the defendant should return KRW 4,821,574, which was paid to Gyeongnam Bank and Gyeong Capital Capital according to the seizure and collection order of this case to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant has authorized the repayment plan in the above individual rehabilitation case against the plaintiff, and before the seizure and collection order in this case becomes effective.