1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the head of the team-level loan counselor who entered into an entrustment contract with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and E (hereinafter “E”) for the recruitment of loan products.

B. On October 18, 2018, the Defendant entered into an entrustment contract with a non-party company for the solicitation of loan products (hereinafter “instant entrustment contract”) on behalf of the non-party company. In addition to the instant entrustment contract with intent to receive fixed benefits from the Plaintiff, the Defendant entered into a separate payment contract with the Plaintiff from October 18, 2018, stating that KRW 2,000,000 per month from October 18, 2018, and that KRW 2,500,000 per month from May 8, 2019 (hereinafter “each of the instant payment contracts”) and worked as a loan counselor.

The Plaintiff paid all benefits under each of the instant benefits contracts to the Defendant.

C. Since then, the Defendant terminated each of the instant benefit contracts on August 20, 2019.

However, on October 10, 2019, the defendant filed a civil petition with E that it did not receive the fees for collective loans.

E. The Defendant concluded each of the instant benefits contracts with the Plaintiff, and filed a civil petition with the Plaintiff, denying the conclusion of each of the instant benefits contracts and filing a civil petition to E despite the fact that there was no commission for the Plaintiff to receive additional benefits under each of the instant benefits contracts.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant that there is no obligation under each of the instant benefits contracts.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not conclude each of the instant benefits contracts with the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to pay benefits or allowances under each of the instant benefits contracts. 2) The Defendant merely demanded allowances to the Nonparty Company based on the instant consignment contract concluded with the Nonparty Company rather than the instant benefits contract.

3. Ultimately, the benefit liability under each of the instant benefits contracts is to be paid.