1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3. The appeal costs.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a person who served as the defendant's employee.

From October 2010 to December 201, the Defendant introduced incentives to pay a certain amount to the soliciting person when the goods are sold by soliciting the subscription to specified money trusts.

On October 21, 2010, 287, 169, December 21, 201, 201, the Defendant paid the following details to the Plaintiff from around 980, 200, 483 on November 19, 201 to around 840, 200 on January 21, 201; 161 on February 845, 201; 880,000 on March 21, 201, pursuant to the aforementioned provision, from around 10, 201 to around 10, 201, 34, 838, 200 on May 20, 201;

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff's assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion as to the judgment, since 2010, the defendant has implemented incentives for employees by soliciting subscription to specified money trusts, and has paid incentives to the plaintiff in accordance with the above system.

However, since January 2012, the defendant unilaterally suspended the payment of the above incentive without any prior notice or consultation. The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the sum of incentives 21,120,000 won and delay damages incurred in the year 2012 and 2013.

Judgment

The fact that the Defendant had paid incentives to the Plaintiff by implementing the incentive system following the solicitation for subscription to a specified money trust until 2011 is recognized as above, but it is difficult to view that the incentive system was implemented even after 2012, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire arguments, the defendant's incentive system is approved by each business department.