1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into an insurance solicitation entrustment contract with the Defendant, and the Defendant has from January 13, 2015 to the same year in accordance with the said insurance solicitation entrustment contract.

6. By February, 600, the Plaintiff served as an insurance solicitor.

B. The Defendant received from the Plaintiff KRW 6,428,642 on February 2015, KRW 6,453,138 on March 2015, KRW 6,85,057 on April 2015, and KRW 19,76,837 on the basis of fees for insurance contracts recruited by the Defendant, but did not receive KRW 39,280 on May 2015.

C. According to the above insurance solicitation agreement, where the insurance contract solicited by the defendant is terminated or invalidated, the defendant shall refund the fee received from the plaintiff as the recovery amount. However, the defendant's total amount of 20,344,513 won was invalidated by a majority of the insurance contracts collected by the defendant.

The defendant set aside KRW 1,103,928 as a risk reserve in preparation for the occurrence of the obligation to recover due to the termination of the insurance, etc., and the plaintiff deducted KRW 39,280 from the risk reserve and the defendant's fee to be paid from May 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 18,841,305 (20,344,513 won - 1,103,928 won - 39,280 won) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment, following the service of a copy of the complaint (payment order) sought by the Plaintiff, which is reasonable to dispute the existence or scope of the performance obligation from August 31, 2015.

The plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, but the plaintiff has reduced the plaintiff's claim