1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff was commissioned as an insurance solicitor by the Defendant, who is a life insurance company, and was dismissed on December 31, 2013.

B. According to the Defendant’s FC commission payment guidelines, where an insurance solicitor entered into an insurance contract with a customer, the Defendant paid the fee of the 24th (2nd) year to the insurance solicitor in advance, and where the pertinent insurance contract is not deposited on 24 occasions due to the withdrawal, termination, invalidation, cancellation, etc. of the subscription, the part of the fee already paid, which was less than two years ago.

C. The Plaintiff received fees of KRW 119,932,141 from the Defendant while working as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor. Of these, the Plaintiff’s fees subject to redemption in accordance with the FC Fee Payment Guidelines are total of KRW 17,96,000, because the insurance contract has not been maintained up until 24 times.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 10 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. On May 2, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any sufficient explanation about the refund of advance payment fees at the time of commission of the Defendant and the insurance solicitor, and did not know at all about the FC fee payment guidelines.

Therefore, the plaintiff is not obligated to return the FC allowances of KRW 17,99,00 to the defendant.

B. According to the evidence conducted prior to the determination, Article 5 of the FC Commission Agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant provides that a company shall pay insurance solicitation fees to FC in accordance with the fee payment guidelines, and the signature and seal of the contract is written in front of the signature and seal, stating that “the principal confirmed the content of the fee payment guidelines.” The Plaintiff received education on the duty to receive allowances from the Defendant for FC after concluding the FC Commission agreement with the Defendant, and the new FC Educational Data.