logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.11 2019가단5082895
수수료 반환 등
Text

1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

Facts of recognition

On July 8, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the commission of insurance solicitors (hereinafter “instant commission contract”) with Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) and performed the insurance solicitation business for the Defendant Company as an insurance solicitor belonging to the D branch until he/she is dismissed on April 1, 2017.

When the Plaintiff performs the business of mediating the conclusion of the insurance contract with respect to the insurance products of the Defendant Company, the Defendant Company shall pay a prescribed fee to the Plaintiff in return, and where the collected contract is not maintained due to the future invalidation, cancellation, etc., the commission contract of this case has a separate provision on the payment and redemption criteria of the fee.

All of the insurance contracts arranged by the plaintiff were 12 grounds for recovery, such as invalidation, etc., and the amount of fees incurred after dismissal was deducted and the plaintiff is 1,983,790 won.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Eul's statement in Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff alleged that there is no obligation to pay the return fee to the defendant company. However, due to reasons such as failure to maintain the insurance contract, etc., the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of existence of existence of the defendant company is without merit.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant C is liable to pay KRW 10,000,000 as compensation for damages, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, since Defendant C, as the head of the branch office of D, urged the Plaintiff to sign a self-written signature with the documents such as the commission contract and forced the Plaintiff to conduct a multi-stage business unfairly, thereby causing mental and material injury.

The judgment on the counterclaims.

arrow