1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, 10,570,000 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant and its related thereto from May 27, 2015 to July 19, 2017.

1. On August 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with the Defendant, who is engaged in the business of arranging overseas employment or the acquisition of permanent sovereignty, to delegate employment visa services to Canada. The key contents of the contract are as follows.

Article 1 (Term of Contract)

1. The term of validity of this Agreement shall be from the date of preparation of the Agreement until the date “B (Plaintiff)” is issued by the visa.

Article 2 (Duties of Defendant A)

1. Selection and management of overseas good offices;

2. To carry out in good faith all the speed and process necessary for obtaining approval for resettlement under an agreement with overseas good offices; and

3. The obligations of Party A shall be terminated by acquiring the visa of Party B.

The plaintiff paid 15,100,000 won in total to the defendant, including 1.3 million won in Korea.

On November 19, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued by the Government of Canada for a two-year period of 2 years to be employed as Mates from Company B of Canada arranged by the Defendant.

After departure from Canada for six months from the above company, the Plaintiff demanded the representative of the above company to raise the grade to the occupational group that can apply for sovereignty, but it was rejected due to the lack of compliance with agriculture.

Around July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea after the acquisition of permanent sovereignty and arranged the Defendant to find a job for the Plaintiff. Around July 29, 2014, the Plaintiff served to the Defendant with a certificate of intent to cancel the instant contract on the ground that the Plaintiff was not a company capable of being employed to acquire permanent sovereignty, and the content certification was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 7, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The main point of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff, as a premise for acquiring the permanent sovereignty of Canada, can obtain the permanent sovereignty to the Defendant.