1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

In fact, the Plaintiff is a multi-level marketing business entity under the Act on Door-to-Door Sales, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "Door-to-Door Sales Act"), which aims at selling communications equipment.

On the other hand, the defendant is a mutual aid association established under Article 38 of the Door-to-Door Sales Act for the purpose of insurance business for consumer damage caused by multi-level marketing business.

On December 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a mutual aid transaction agreement with the Defendant Union (Evidence A2). The main contents are as follows.

Upon entering into a mutual aid transaction agreement with the defendant union, the plaintiff understand that the provisions of the defendant union's "mutual aid agreement" and "mutual aid payment agreement" apply and agrees to the following provisions:

Article 5 (Suspension and Termination of Mutual Aid Agreement) (2) The defendant union may terminate the Mutual Aid Agreement immediately to the plaintiff where any of the following grounds exists:

8. Where intentional omission in sales reports has been habitually made at least twice a year, Article 18 (Additional Provisions) (2) Where the articles of incorporation, mutual aid regulations, etc. are amended with approval of the Fair Trade Commission, the relevant provisions of this terms and conditions shall be deemed amended as stated in the articles of incorporation, mutual aid regulations, etc.

On September 10, 2013, the Defendant Union notified the Plaintiff that the instant mutual aid transaction agreement was terminated on the ground that “the Plaintiff intentionally omitted the report of communications sales on April 1, 2013, 6, and 7.”

【The ground for recognition” No. 1-1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, and 6 of the evidence, the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion of the judgment does not have any ground for termination under Article 5 (2) 8 of the above Agreement (hereinafter "the termination clause of this case") since the plaintiff did not intentionally omit the report of communications sales to the defendant union. Thus, the termination of the mutual aid transaction agreement is unlawful. Accordingly, the plaintiff is no longer running its business, and the plaintiff's investment is at least in its capital.