1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that he was introduced by the Defendant in order to proceed with the international marriage of ASEAN, and that he was willing to introduce KIKO women from the Defendant, and paid 20 million won at the cost of marriage brokerage, and entered into an international marriage brokerage contract (hereinafter “instant brokerage contract”).

However, even though the defendant did not have the intent or ability to act as a broker for international marriage with KIKOstan women, there are many considered women among KIKOstan women, and deceiving the plaintiff to act as a broker for international marriage with C, thereby deceiving the plaintiff to act as a broker for marriage brokerage, and deceiving the plaintiff to act as a broker for marriage brokerage. The plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the instant brokerage contract and the return of the said brokerage fee as unjust enrichment.

In addition, according to the instant brokerage contract, the Defendant failed to perform his/her duty to introduce the women of the above country to become a sexual intercourse with C and KIKOstan women, despite the burden of introducing them to sexual intercourse, and the Defendant is liable for damages of KRW 20 million due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of such obligation.

2. The Defendant failed to comply with the instant brokerage agreement even though the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff or the testimony by the witness C of the first instance trial alone, despite the Defendant’s duty to introduce KIKO female under the instant brokerage agreement.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was deceiving as if the plaintiff was introduced into the above country, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence and the purport of the oral argument, the defendant was a person who was engaged in the international marriage brokerage business in the name of "D", and the plaintiff entered into the instant brokerage contract with the defendant around July 2017, between the defendant and the defendant in relation to his own international marriage of his own son, with the content of mediating sexual intercourse with the Dazistististististististististististististististististististististististististististististististist. The defendant sent a variety of photographs of the Dazististististististististististististististists