(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2018가단31765

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2018가단31765

청구이의의 소

Text

1. The part of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim for the payment of fees shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

The Plaintiff entered into a contract for the commission of insurance solicitors (hereinafter “instant commission contract”) with C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) around June 2016, and worked as an insurance solicitor.

C was merged with the Defendant on June 15, 2017, and the Plaintiff served as an insurance solicitor of the Defendant, and was dismissed on November 2017.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 2 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings is the plaintiff's obligation to return KRW 10,007,00,00, which is part of the insurance fees received during his/her work as an insurance solicitor, which is earlier terminated or invalidated (hereinafter "recollection").

However, it is unreasonable that the defendant did not pay the maintenance fees incurred from the part of the insurance contract recruited by the plaintiff which is maintained under normal conditions until now, or does not deduct from the amount to be returned to the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s obligation to recover KRW 10,007,00 to the Defendant does not exist, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining fees for the insurance that is normally maintained.

The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that if an insurance contract is terminated earlier, part of the fees already paid shall be recovered, and if the Plaintiff is dismissed, the maintenance fee for the insurance under normal maintenance shall not be paid.

The Plaintiff is obligated to pay 1,926,766 won and delay damages to the Defendant, which have not been paid until now, out of the amount to be recovered under the commission contract of this case.

We examine the legitimacy of the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of fees in the principal lawsuit ex officio.

In civil procedure, the purport of the claim should be specified clearly so as to clearly identify the contents and scope of the claim.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015가단33383

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.04 2015나25572

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.11 2017가단6847

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.21 2016가단35780

-부산지방법원 2020.11.20 2019나58360