1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the above cancellation portion is dismissed.

3.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, through the account in the name of the co-defendant C (Defendant’s father) in the first instance trial, remitted each of the instant facts to the Defendant via the account in the name of the co-defendant C (Defendant’s father) and the Defendant on April 13, 2013 is not a dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Party’s assertion 1) The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was sent KRW 12 million to the Defendant as seen in the above basic facts under the name of the employee (D, E, and F) of the Plaintiff’s business establishment operating the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not introduce the Defendant properly, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s assertion was made to be returned KRW 4 million as of April 6, 2013, and the Defendant’s claim was received KRW 4 million as the Plaintiff’s recommendation expense, KRW 6 million as of April 6, 2013, and KRW 45 days after E received KRW 6 million as the prepaid payment, and the settlement was completed with the Plaintiff, and ② KRW 8 million as of April 13, 2013, paid it to G as part of the prepaid payment of Arabic “G”.

③ On May 16, 2013, the Defendant paid KRW 7.9 million to the Plaintiff, and the settlement with the Plaintiff was completed.

B. On the first day for pleading of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff stated that “4 million won was paid at the expense of introduction per employee, three employees was introduced, and three employees was employed, but two employees had fled and one other was employed to the extent of a month.” In the trial, the Defendant did not recognize that certain amount was prepaid, as alleged by the Defendant, while seeking the return of the referral fee that was paid to the Defendant at the trial. As such, insofar as the Defendant’s employee was employed in the Plaintiff’s business and performed work at the Plaintiff’s business, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s duty of introduction was completed, and on such circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s duty of introduction was completed, and there was no other special evidence as to the Defendant’s failure to perform the duty of introduction under the contract with the Plaintiff.