1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the business of selling insurance products by an insurance company, such as a future life insurance company (hereinafter “Smi”) and the Defendant was working as an insurance solicitor from January 201 to December 2012 at the Plaintiff’s B branch (the change to C branch office around February 2012) (the change to C branch office around February 2012).

B. On January 25, 2011, the Defendant: (a) drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff received KRW 6 million; (b) agreed that “The Plaintiff shall work and work for normal attendance for at least three years from the commission date (based on the future deposit); and (c) in the event of a breach of the agreement, the said money shall be refunded” (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (d) issued the Plaintiff a total of KRW 6 million to the Defendant several times from December 201 to May 2011.

C. On January 25, 2011, the Defendant was registered as an insurance employee of the future set of insurance, and the said registration was cancelled on January 4, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff 1) paid KRW 6,00,000 to the defendant on condition that the defendant worked for the plaintiff company for more than three years. Since the defendant retired before the lapse of three years from the date of entry, according to the agreement of this case, the defendant is obligated to return KRW 6,00,000 to the plaintiff pursuant to the agreement of this case. 2) The above KRW 6,00,000 to compensate the defendant's entry into the plaintiff company for losses that the defendant could not receive allowances from the company that had attended before the entry of the plaintiff company. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to return the above money on the ground that the defendant retired before the lapse of three years from the date of entry.

② At the time of February 2012, the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from D while changing and operating D and B, which were the head of the Plaintiff’s B branch, into the form of C branch. The sum of the settlement support payments that the Plaintiff paid to the employees who worked in B, including the Defendant.