(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2016가단10795

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2016가단10795

채무부존재확인

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff served as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor from January 20, 2013 to October 30 of the same year.

B. According to an insurance solicitor appointment contract concluded on January 10, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, where the effect of the insurance contract is terminated due to the failure, invalidation, revocation, or cancellation, etc. of the insurance contract solicited by the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall not pay fees. The Plaintiff shall return all or part of the fees received from the relevant contract to the Plaintiff as prescribed by the “Commission Standards” (Article 7(1)), and according to the main contents of the fee payment criteria attached to the said commission contract, the provisions on new contract fees are as follows.

Part IV Payment and Redemption of Fees

1. The advance payment of the 1.1 new contract fees shall be made in advance in a lump sum on the condition that the premium shall be paid in at least 18 installments, and the advance payment shall be made in 7% at the time of the payment of the 15th insurance premium, excluding the advance payment, from the total amount of the new contract fees, at least 18 times in installments, at 9% at the time of the payment of the 15th insurance premium.

2.1 Where a contract for the recovery of fees for a new contract is not established due to the cancellation of an order, or the whole or part of the already paid premiums is refunded to a contractor, etc. for reasons such as invalidation, cancellation, or cancellation, the company shall recover the fees equivalent to the already paid premiums out of the fees already paid.

C. Eight of the insurance contracts, which the Plaintiff recruited during the commission period, were terminated, and the Defendant decided that each of the insurance contracts listed in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant insurance contract”) was revoked on the ground of incomplete sale, and notified the Plaintiff of the purport that the collection of the new contract fee 1,757,491, which was paid pursuant to the sales of the instant insurance contract, should be returned.

Each of the above provisions.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.04.15 2015가단17808

-서울동부지방법원 2016.09.09 2016나2293

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.23 2016가단5052978

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.05.19 2015가단28237

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016나33119