1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 16, 2013, the Defendant entered into a membership agreement with the Plaintiff for the purpose of providing marriage information services, which provides that: (a) the Plaintiff shall perform international marriage brokerage services by designating the counterpart country for international marriage in the Philippines; and (b) the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 12,50,000,000, which is the sum of the expenses incurred for international marriage brokerage and the brokerage fees; and (c) the remainder of KRW 6,500,000,000, which is paid each after the marriage report (hereinafter “instant agreement”); (d) around that time, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 6,00,000 as the down payment; and (e) on April 30, 2013, the Defendant shall prepare a written confirmation to pay KRW 5,00,000 to the Plaintiff by the agent of the new part of the Philippines, in the event the Defendant unilaterally renounced marriage.

B. On April 30, 2013, the Defendant: (a) introduced a new father B from the Plaintiff to the Philippines on April 30, 2013; and (b) made a marriage ceremony.

C. However, around May 2, 2013, the Defendant, on the grounds that it was difficult to communicate with B and make it difficult to form a ties, issued a written waiver of marriage to waive the marriage, and returned to the Plaintiff, and returned to the Republic of Korea.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence 2, 4, 12, Eul’s evidence 1, Gap’s video and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant unilaterally renounced marriage after marriage was married to the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea, the defendant served the plaintiff with the consolation money of KRW 5,000,000 due to renunciation of marriage in accordance with the above confirmation, and the defendant's objection against the plaintiff as to the existence or scope of the defendant's duty of performance from November 19, 2013 following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to November 29, 2013, which is the date of the ruling of the court of the first instance, to July 2, 2015, as stipulated in the Civil Act, and from the following day.