1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the commission of insurance solicitation business (hereinafter “instant commission contract”) and was commissioned as the Defendant’s MP (Mter Manner; general insurance solicitors) and was dismissed on May 28, 2015.

According to the commission contract of this case, the items, calculation method, payment method, and recovery criteria of each fee to be paid to the Plaintiff are governed by the company regulations prepared by the Defendant. Of the Defendant’s fee payment provision, the part related to this case is as shown in the attached Form.

(2) The Defendant paid KRW 53,50,000 for settlement fees and insurance contract fees and KRW 4,261,085 to the Plaintiff during the commission period in accordance with the instant fee payment provision, and recovered KRW 8,916,66 among them from the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5-3, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. As an employee of the Defendant’s assertion of coercion of tort, the Plaintiff’s SM (Ss Mager; manager) urged the Plaintiff to make a customer subscribe to life insurance with a false explanation that it is a high-income savings product, and cancel it after 24 months, and pay the Plaintiff fees to the customer for two years.

F’s above act constitutes “an act of not only notifying policyholders or insured workers of the contents of insurance products differently from the facts or notifying important matters thereof” prohibited by Article 97(1)1 of the Insurance Business Act, but also Article 85(3)5 of the same Act.