1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

The relevant parties are insurance companies that engage in life insurance business, and the Defendants are insurance solicitors belonging to the Plaintiff and have performed customer recruitment business.

The Defendants, who subscribed to insurance customers and concluded insurance contracts by the Defendants, were insurance solicitors, and Defendant A, Defendant B, and Defendant C, as shown in the attached Table 1 Table, recruited insurance customers and concluded each insurance contract with the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants, and as a result, the Plaintiff concluded a false insurance contract before the Defendants lent only the personal information of those who have no intention to purchase the actual insurance to the investigation agency, and subsequently filed a criminal complaint against the Defendants by deceiving the corresponding insurance solicitation fee from the Plaintiff.

A prosecutor made a disposition against Defendant B on April 27, 2016 and around that time against the rest of the Defendants: Provided, That a person engaged in the conclusion or solicitation of insurance contracts against Defendant A, who did not provide a policyholder or the insured with special benefits, such as the payment of premiums, etc. in connection with the conclusion or solicitation thereof, was prosecuted on May 23, 2017 on the ground of a violation of the Insurance Business Act that he/she paid insurance premiums to the customer, and was convicted of a fine of KRW 5 million on May 23, 2017.

(E) The Plaintiff Defendants asserted the following facts: (a) the fact that there is no dispute [based basis for recognition]; (b) Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 4 (if the number is not specified, each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply); (c) Eul evidence Nos. 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 2; and (d) the purport of the whole pleadings; and (d) the purport of the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff Defendants abused the Plaintiff as an insurance solicitor, thereby making another person conclude a false insurance contract by abusing the fact that the Plaintiff would preferentially pay part of the solicitation fees when soliciting the insurance contracts, and committed a tort by deceiving the insurance solicitation fees.