(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단10090

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단10090

지원금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. A. On April 2014, the Plaintiff entered the business financial services (hereinafter “Eths financial services”) into an insurance agency’s business as Eths financial services C branch, and at the time the Plaintiff entered the Defendant, who had worked as an insurance solicitor of Alths Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Eths”) as the insurance solicitor of the said insurance agency.

B. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff repaid the Defendant’s loans amounting to KRW 7,628,949 on behalf of the Defendant, and paid the Defendant a total of KRW 30,128,949 (hereinafter “instant subsidies”) by paying KRW 2,50,000 on June 23, 2014, KRW 10,000 on June 30, 2014, and KRW 10,000 on July 15, 2014, respectively.

C. Around March 2015, the Plaintiff filed complaints on the business environment, etc. of business financial services, terminated business partnership with E-Financial Services, and transferred his/her insurance agency to the branch of Korea Korea. The Defendant did not move along with the Plaintiff to the branch Korea.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Evidence Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the court on Nov. 20, 2015 regarding the order to submit financial transaction information in this Court

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant paid the instant subsidy to the Defendant on the condition that the Defendant left his job as the Plaintiff’s insurance agency and worked for at least three years, and that the Defendant agreed to return the full amount of the said subsidy in the event that the Defendant did not fulfill the above three-year working period condition, and that the Defendant violated the said agreement by leaving the Plaintiff’s insurance agency without fulfilling the said three-year working period condition, and that the Defendant should return the full amount of the subsidy to the Plaintiff upon the fulfillment of the said condition

B. As to this, the Defendant is the Plaintiff’s insurance agency to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.18 2016나633

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.18 2015나6849

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.18 2015나6863

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.18 2015나6856

-울산지방법원 2020.05.07 2019나11753