A. In relation to the study of the Plaintiff’s children in the Philippines, the Plaintiff was introduced by Defendant C, the representative director of Defendant C and Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) operating H companies located in the Philippines G, who is the head office of FF Institute in the Republic of Korea, who is a representative of the Republic of Korea in the Philippines, and Defendant E, the said FF Institute representative of the Republic of Korea.

B. On August 6, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 69,830,080,00 to Defendant B’s account in Defendant B’s name for the study expenses in the Philippines by the Plaintiff’s children, and KRW 69,830,080,000, total of KRW 12,000 on December 9, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to send the Plaintiff’s children to the international school I (hereinafter “instant international school”) located in the Philippines G through a study consultation with the Defendants, and concluded a contract with the Defendants for an agency for studying to arrange the Plaintiff’s children’s study abroad. A total of KRW 69,830,080 for the purpose of studying expenses, such as school expenses, dormitory expenses, etc., was deposited into the Defendant B’s account.

Accordingly, even though the Defendants, as a mandatory agent or contractor, have the duty of care to arrange the Plaintiff’s study abroad with the care of a good manager, they did not verify whether the Plaintiff’s children acquired an admission permit to the international school of this case in which management rights dispute occurred, and did not provide the Plaintiff with accurate information about the management dispute of the international school of this case, and the terms and conditions of the contract and the terms and conditions were not given. As such, the Plaintiff’s children entered the international school of this case were eventually un

Therefore, the Plaintiff, on April 14, 201, revoked the Plaintiff’s agency contract with the Defendants for study procedure through the service of a duplicate of the application form for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on April 14, 2016 due to the Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, and the Defendants respectively enter into an agency contract