1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 7, 2013, the Defendant, the purpose of which is insurance business, etc., entrusted the Plaintiff with affairs such as brokerage of concluding insurance contracts and maintenance of contracts, and entered into a contract for commission of insurance solicitors to pay fees in accordance with the fee payment rules set by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”). From January 2013 to February 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 4,300,000 as settlement allowances to the Plaintiff as KRW 1,70,000, KRW 1,400,000, KRW 1,200,000 as settlement allowances.

B. The Plaintiff was active as the Defendant’s insurance solicitor under the instant contract, but the recruitment performance, etc. was dismissed on May 30, 2013 on the ground that it did not meet the minimum standards stipulated in the instant contract.

C. Article 27 Subparag. 3 (hereinafter “instant provision”) of the Defendant’s fee payment provision (O. 2012-1) (hereinafter “instant fee payment provision”) is as follows.

If a person is dismissed within one year from the time he/she was commissioned, the total amount of the initial settlement allowance already paid shall be recovered. In such cases, 85% of the initial settlement allowance shall be recovered from MATSPNNNNNNER, and 10% of the initial settlement allowance shall be recovered from MA in the event of dismissal due to a cause attributable to which the obligation, such as faithful guidance, supervision, etc., is not fulfilled.”

D. Under the above provision, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return KRW 3,655,000 (=4,300,000 x 85%) equivalent to 85% of the aforementioned settlement allowances (=4,300,000 x 85%).

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entries in Eul Nos. 1, 3, 4, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned is a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, and the defendant has a duty to explain it to the plaintiff as the party to the contract.