2...

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of Company B (hereinafter “B”) who is an international marriage broker registered pursuant to Article 4 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act (hereinafter “Marriage Business Act”).

B. B entered into an international marriage brokerage agreement with C on April 20, 2014, and around May 2014, as well as the international marriage brokerage agreement between C and Uzbekistan.

C. On August 24, 2015, the Defendant notified the Commissioner of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Police Agency of the fact that B did not provide personal information of other foreign women before the international marriage broker’s arrival to the user of the international marriage broker. On the ground that B did not provide personal information prior to the arrival of the documents in violation of Article 10-2(1) of the former Marriage Brokers Business Act (amended by Act No. 14405, Dec. 20, 2016; hereinafter “former Marriage Brokers Business Act”); Article 3-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Marriage Brokers Business Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 27751, Dec. 30, 2016; hereinafter “former Enforcement Decree of the Marriage Brokers Business Act”); Article 3-2(3) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Marriage Brokers Business Act (hereinafter “instant provision”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. To make entries in the attached statutes concerned;

3. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. Article 10-2(1) of the former Marriage Brokers Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides an international marriage broker with personal information (including evidential documents; hereinafter the same shall apply) such as health conditions, etc. to the user and the other party of the international marriage broker in writing, and Article 10-2(4) of the same Act provides the time of provision of personal information to the Presidential Decree.