The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment below

According to the reasons and records, the following facts are recognized:

The organization of insurance solicitors of the plaintiff consists of class structures such as insurance solicitors (FP), middle-side insurance solicitors (SM), business branch offices (PBM), branch offices (BM) and branch offices (BM).

The Plaintiff entered into the instant commission contract with the Defendant, with the content that the Defendant would be the head of the business branch. At the time, the criteria for recovery of settlement fees at the time, the head of the business branch, who is dismissed within 2 years from the date of delegation, shall be recovered, and if the status is converted to an intermediate insurance solicitor, it shall be deemed not dismissed.

Before the lapse of two years since the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a special agreement for the status conversion of this case with the content that the defendant becomes an intermediate insurance solicitor on the ground of the defendant's poor performance. In the process, the defendant should maintain his status as an intermediate insurance solicitor for two years from the time of conclusion of the special agreement for the status conversion of this case.

In regard to this, the court below held that the special agreement on the conversion of status of this case was a separate agreement with the effect that the status as an insurance solicitor should be maintained additionally for two years while suspending the defendant's obligation to return settlement fees already incurred or likely to occur under the instant commission agreement.

Then, the defendant's assertion that the above settlement fee return provision cannot be deemed to be contrary to good morals and other social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act merely because the period of commission for which the payment of settlement fee is exempted becomes greater than that stipulated in the instant commission agreement.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on Article 103 of the Civil Act

Therefore, it is therefore.