1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The principal lawsuit and the first and second counterclaims shall be deemed to exist together.

1. The reasons why this Court's statement concerning this part of the facts are the same as the entries in the first instance court's judgment, except that "(s) Nos. 1, 8, 14, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9(s) (including serial numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings" are as stated in the first instance court's judgment, except that "(s) Nos. 1, 8, 14, 5 of the first instance court's judgment(s) and Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 of the first instance court's judgment(s) are added

On the other hand, on May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the grant of settlement support (hereinafter “Agreement on the grant of settlement support of this case”) with the Defendant Company including the following:

【Agreement on the Support of Settlement Support】

1) Settlement subsidy 1): The number of subsidies granted: The amount of 500,000 won for the Special Metropolitan City (Provided, That 500,000 won for the month of the payment month, 90% for the month of the payment month) when the settlement of personal guarantee converted from May to April 2015 (12 months) from May 2015 to April 2016;

3. 1) Working-term 2 years (based on the date of appointment of agency designer code 2) Standard Activity Regulations (standard activities: 500,00 P& information hosting participation and normal 80%) 2 times to 13 times, 92% of the total maintenance rate between 13 times to 92%) 90% of the total maintenance rate (13 times and 18 times of initial evaluation).

4. Provisions on Recovery of Settlement Subsidies: The full amount of the settlement subsidy granted shall be returned in the event of failure to meet the basic conditions set forth in paragraph (3) and the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 12,621,400 from the Defendant Company in the event of failure to return the amount of the settlement subsidy, and the Plaintiff returned the full amount of the subsidy granted to the Defendant Company on October 14, 2015 when the instant commissioning contract was dismissed.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant fee refund provision is an insurance company’s commission contract with multiple insurance solicitors.