입회금반환
1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The extension has been made in the first instance.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Article 2 (Definitions) (2) of the facts of the foundation refers to a company's good offices to seek a marriage counterpart among its members.
(3) The term "educational system" means that a member who has met with the introduction of a company continues to meet two or more times.
Article 9 (Refund of Subscription Amount) (1) Subscription money shall not be refunded from the time of providing protopy at least twice.
2. After holding a meeting at least once, it shall not be refunded membership fees after joining the meeting.
(3) If the first protocol is provided from the date of conclusion of the contract, 30% of the subscription fee shall be refunded.
6. The refund of subscription fees upon termination of the contract shall be refunded within three months after the application for termination, and the documents submitted shall not be returned.
On April 13, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a membership agreement with the Defendant, who operates a marriage information company (hereinafter “instant marriage information company”) with “C” (hereinafter “instant marriage information company”), with a total of KRW 1,650,000, and with a total of KRW 7 times (5 +2 times) until sexual intercourse (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and paid KRW 1,650,000 to the Defendant around that time.
The following are applicable to the content of the instant contract.
B. The Defendant, via the head of the counseling office D affiliated with the instant marriage information company, proposed to the Plaintiff a female who met the conditions that the Plaintiff wants once each time from April 2015 and May 2015, but did not reach the “intermediate system”.
C. D retired from the instant marriage information company on September 2015, 2015, and around that time, E was employed as the head of the new counseling office.
E sent to the Plaintiff on September 9, 2015, a problem message stating that the head of the counseling office has changed to himself.
As the Plaintiff did not introduce a female in addition to the instant marriage information company, the Plaintiff was not a “introduction” on September 11, 2015.