1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

The 2nd sentence of the first instance judgment " September 9, 2009" shall be amended to " December 4, 2009" in the 16th sentence.

The main part of the judgment of the court of first instance 3 and 4 "D." shall be amended as follows:

D. The Defendant, after the cancellation of each of the instant insurance contracts, notified the Plaintiff that the full amount of fees paid upon the conclusion of the instant insurance contracts were recovered, and did not pay KRW 173,436,943 to the Plaintiff fees to be paid normally by deducting a certain amount from the fees to be paid normally according to the solicitation of insurance contracts other than each of the instant insurance contracts. The fourth part of the first instance judgment “3. Interpretation of the Restitution Agreement” is amended as follows.

3. Interpretation of this case’s restitution agreement

A. The instant restitution agreement shall recover the full amount of fees paid, regardless of the term of the insurance contract, where the grounds for cancellation of the insurance contract, etc. by the policyholder arise within 12 times as of the monthly payment of the insurance premium, and shall not recover fees in cases where the grounds for cancellation of the insurance contract, etc. by the policyholder arose within 12 times as of the monthly payment of the insurance premium.

B. As a matter of principle, whether the Defendant, an insurance company, paid a fee to the Plaintiff, who is an insurance solicitor, and recovered it in any case can be deemed as belonging to the private autonomy area.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 14 and the entire pleadings, the defendant and the policyholder according to the policyholder's civil petition filing.