logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.04.09 2013가합103214
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of premise;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that operates an insurance agency business, such as concluding an insurance contract and receiving insurance premiums, upon entering into an insurance agency contract with an insurance company, such as the Young Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Life Insurance Co., Ltd.”). The Defendant entered into an insurance solicitor commission contract with the Plaintiff and served as the Plaintiff

B. The defendant recruited the insurance contract for the teaching life and received a certain amount of solicitation fees from the plaintiff during the period of commissioning contract with the plaintiff.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of concluding the appointment contract with the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to refund the full amount of commission received from the Plaintiff due to the pertinent insurance contract to the Plaintiff where the contract was invalidated due to the failure, invalidation, revocation, or cancellation of the contract recruited by the Defendant.

B. In addition, when concluding a contract with an insurance solicitor, all insurance companies, including the Plaintiff, etc. stipulate that “where the effect of the insurance contract solicited by the insurance solicitor terminates, the insurance solicitor shall refund the fees received from the relevant insurance contract.” If the fees to be paid to the insurance solicitor are paid definitely only by the conclusion of the insurance contract regardless of the validity of the insurance contract, the malicious insurance solicitor who entered into the false insurance contract with the insurance solicitor and received the insurance commission shall be punished.

C. The above B.

In light of the circumstances such as Paragraph 1, it is reasonable to view that the fees that the Plaintiff pays to the Defendant, an insurance solicitor, not just for the solicitation of insurance contracts but for the conclusion of insurance contracts and for the maintenance of insurance contracts for a certain period, has the nature of the advance payment fees.

arrow