beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, Gap evidence No. 1 (the defendant requested the plaintiff to prepare for the defendant, and directly prepared the plaintiff's pro rata to the plaintiff, and the content is contrary to the truth. However, in a case where the authenticity of a disposition document is recognized, the existence of a juristic act must be recognized unless there are special circumstances that allow the plaintiff to deny the existence and content of his/her expression of intent indicated in the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu16505, Mar. 23, 1990; 97Da1013, Jan. 21, 200). It is difficult to find that the authenticity of a disposition document is established, and it is obvious and acceptable to deny the existence and content of the expression of intent indicated in the loan certificate, and the defendant's assertion is not accepted. However, according to the purport of each evidence No. 2 and all pleadings and arguments, the fact that the plaintiff lent the document to the defendant as an insurance solicitor around August 30, 2014.
On the other hand, the defendant's payment of 2,00,000 won to the defendant on the condition that he worked for one year if he begins to work as an insurance solicitor. When the defendant increases the insurance solicitor between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, he agreed to be paid 1,00,000 won for each person and increased two. Thus, the plaintiff is required to pay 2,00,000 won for subsidies and 2,000,000 won for allowances. The plaintiff asserts that he was paid 3,00,000 won out of the above amount around August 2014.
The following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, including ① there is no evidence to accept the assertion that paying a certain amount of money under the pretext of solicitation allowance and support allowance in the insurance business community, ② rather than the fee regulations of the Plaintiff’s agency.