(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.01 2015나30705

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.01 2015나30705

환수금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 25, 2009, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff (the trade name at the time was “gold Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,” but the trade name was changed to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2010) for commission of insurance solicitors and was dismissed on May 19, 2009.

B. Around February 2009, the Defendant received 4 million won of settlement support from the Plaintiff.

According to the plaintiff's allowance refund provision (A No. 1-2), the settlement support amount shall be settled in full by deducting a certain percentage from the fees to be paid each month from the 8th to the 15th month according to achievements.

C. The Defendant received total of KRW 958,773 from the Plaintiff as advance payment fees, etc. with respect to the insurance contracts recruited during the commission period of the insurance solicitor. A part of the insurance contract was invalidated due to termination, etc.

According to the above restitution provisions, the amount to be returned by the defendant to the plaintiff due to the above invalidation is KRW 695,966.

[Grounds for Recognition: Each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The defendant was dismissed for not more than three months since he was commissioned as the plaintiff's insurance solicitor. In accordance with the above restitution provision, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above settlement subsidy amounting to four million won, the recovery amounting to 695,966 won, and the delay damages for this.

B. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff did not hear an explanation about the redemption provisions applicable to the terms and conditions, the redemption provisions do not constitute the terms and conditions of the contract, and that even if the redemption provisions were the terms and conditions of the contract, they are unfair terms and conditions as invalid.

According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 6-1 through 4, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant was aware of the above restitution provision from the plaintiff with an explanation, and the above restitution provision.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.24 2015가단11807

-서울남부지방법원 2016.05.26 2015나53600

-인천지방법원 2016.08.17 2014가단48575

-부산지방법원 2020.02.14 2019나54412

-서울동부지방법원 2017.11.21 2016가단35780