1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff's commission contract against the defendant on January 5, 2016.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance and the reasoning for this part of the plaintiff's assertion is as follows: (a) the part of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, with the exception that the court's explanation of the basic facts and this part of the plaintiff's assertion is based on "RM in 1 to 18th" of the judgment of the court of first instance, and "RM in 1 to 12th"

Since the part of the plaintiff's assertion is the same as that of the plaintiff's assertion, it is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Determination

A. The reason why the court should explain this part of the case of dismissal is the same as the part concerning whether the fee is to be refunded even in the case of dismissal under Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the court's explanation on this part is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal date within the 13th month was based on the fact that the Plaintiff’s dismissal date was January 5, 2016, as seen earlier, and whether the Plaintiff’s dismissal date was deemed any time.

The Plaintiff’s content-certified mail prepared to the effect that the Plaintiff wishes to terminate the instant commissioning contract due to personal circumstances reaches the Defendant on January 25, 2017, the Plaintiff was present at the Defendant’s office until January 27, 2017, and the Defendant’s electronic computer system entered the Plaintiff’s work until January 31, 2017, as seen earlier. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, and 4, the Plaintiff’s work period is stated in the Defendant’s written confirmation of dismissal of design company from January 5, 2016 to January 31, 2017, and the date the Plaintiff’s registration of insurance solicitor was cancelled at the C Association on February 6, 2017.

According to the evidence No. 7, the part of the defendant's business guidelines stipulating "the recipient of the application for termination of the commissioned contract" as one of the persons subject to dismissal. In the case of dismissal, it can be seen that the termination of the commission contract was completed.

Therefore, the plaintiff's application for termination of commission contract is received to the defendant.