1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 660, which was 2016, 2016, drawn up by the law firm office and office on March 14, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is an insurance solicitor, and the defendant is a company that runs the insurance agency business, etc.

B. On December 14, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the commission of an insurance solicitor (hereinafter “instant contract”) with a content that the Defendant would receive fees, etc., and signed an agreement on the payment, redemption, etc. of fees (hereinafter “Agreement”).

C. The Defendant pays a certain percentage of fees to the insurance contracts concluded through an insurance solicitor, which is based on the premise that the insurance contract is maintained, and thus the insurance contract becomes void due to the change, invalidation, termination, revocation, etc. of the insurance contract after the insurance company is paid in advance from the insurance company.

(Article 9(6)(d) of the instant contract.

On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 10 million per annum, the Defendant, and the due date for payment, in order to secure the Defendant’s performance of the obligation to return the advance payment fee. On March 14, 2016, the Plaintiff drafted and issued a notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection even if the Plaintiff is immediately subject to compulsory execution, if the Plaintiff delays the payment of the advance payment to the bearer of the promissory note under the No. 660 of the Certificate.

(hereinafter referred to as “notarial deeds of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff did not have any intention or negligence on the cancellation or invalidation of the insurance contract subject to restitution as alleged by the Defendant, and did not have any obligation to return the advance payment fee. Even if acknowledged, the Defendant’s negligence on the management of the Defendant’s side, the Plaintiff’s responsibility should be reduced to a certain portion. 2) The Defendant’s negligence on October 19, 2016.