1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,254,750 as well as its full payment from April 19, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 5, 2008, the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff for commission of insurance solicitors, and was engaged in soliciting life insurance by May 1, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff paid the fee to the Defendant in accordance with the standard for the payment of fees agreed upon at the time of the above contract. Since then, there was a ground for recovery of KRW 3,550,409, out of the fees that the 17 insurance contracts collected by the Defendant were invalidated and the advance payment was made.

C. On November 26, 2010, the Plaintiff received KRW 2,295,659 from the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., which concluded a guarantee insurance contract with the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the result of this court's order to submit financial transaction information to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., the whole purport of the argument

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a refund of KRW 1,254,750 (=3,550,409-2,295,659) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 19, 2014 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable because he did not know about the provision on the recovery of commission under the commission contract and did not have any explanation, since he did not know about the important matters and the confirmation letter of explanation. However, according to the evidence No. 3, the defendant's argument is without merit since it can be acknowledged that the defendant signed on the commission contract, the payment criteria

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is unfair because it had already been paid to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd., but the plaintiff claims the remaining fees except for the amount of 2,295,659 won paid from Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. on November 26, 2010. Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff .