beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, jointly with Defendant B, KRW 449,974,62, and Defendant B, among these amounts, Defendant C’s KRW 191,231,940, and Defendant C.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is an insurance broker that entered into an insurance consignment contract with F, G, etc.
Defendant B is an insurance solicitor belonging to H H H H’s branch.
Defendant C, D, and E are insurance solicitors belonging to the Plaintiff’s Seoul Gangnam-gu Headquarters branch offices, and Defendant C is the head of the above branch office.
B. Defendant B’s policyholder who did not intend to buy insurance from September 2015 to April 2016 (hereinafter “ False policyholder”)
(B) After borrowing only the name from Defendant C, D, and E, the Plaintiff purchased 79 insurance policies under the name of the false policyholder using the insurance solicitor code of Defendant C, D, and E (hereinafter “instant insurance solicitation”).
2) The Plaintiff: (a) deemed that Defendant C, D, and E entered into a new insurance contract; and (b) paid allowances to Defendant C, D, and E under the terms of “new contract allowance”, “incentive”, and “incentive Party Policy”; and (c) thereafter, Defendant C, D, and E delivered the remainder after deducting some amount from the said allowances to Defendant B.
C. 1) Defendant B was suspected of having concluded a 79 insurance contract in the name of a false policyholder from September 2015 to April 2016, 2016, and Defendant C conspired with Defendant B with Defendant B while knowing that Defendant B would attract false policyholders on February 2016, Defendant C was indicted on suspicion that he/she concluded a 21 insurance contract in the name of the false policyholder from March 2016 to April 2016, and acquired allowances from the Plaintiff. 2) Defendant B was sentenced to a suspended sentence of 4 years on October 19, 2017, and Defendant C was acquitted.
[Korean District Court Decision 2016Gohap594, 2017Gohap76 (Consolidated)] The Prosecutor appealed, but the above appeal was dismissed on August 28, 2018.
(Seoul High Court 2017No3314). [Reasons for Recognition] does not dispute, Gap evidence 1, 11, and Eul evidence 3 respectively.