logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.17 2016나1609
중개수수료
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person operating a marriage information company D.

B. On December 6, 2012, and March 13, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) sold a contact line with Defendant C for each marriage; and (b) when a marriage becomes final and conclusive, the Plaintiff is included in the case where the living together commences or the marriage schedule is fixed pursuant to Article 10 of the pledge.

In this regard, a contract was entered into to pay 2 million won of gender divorce expenses.

C. The Plaintiff and Defendant B’s contract deletes the registration fee of KRW 300,000.

Defendant B and C were viewed as the Plaintiff’s main agent.

E. Defendant B and C got married and lived together.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant B and C were caused to be married. As such, the defendant B and C are obligated to pay the plaintiff 2 million won of sexual intercourse and 300,000 won of registration, and the defendant C are obligated to pay the plaintiff 2 million won of sexual intercourse.

B. Defendant B’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not prepare a self-introduction, a written pledge, and a domestic marriage contract, and there was no entry that 300,000 won was paid for the registration fee. The Plaintiff’s claim is based on the forged document. The Plaintiff did not have any explanation to the Defendant on the cost of sexual intercourse. 2) The Defendant’s assertion by Defendant C did not have any entry that 30,000 won was paid to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff received only the signature from the defendant, but did not explain the content of sexual intercourse, etc. in detail, and voluntarily revised the content of sexual confusion in accordance with the plaintiff's mind.

After the adjacent line, there was no call for each other's telephone numbers, and only a certain period of time (3 months) has passed, and it became difficult to talk again on the way.

Defendant B is not entitled to pay money because he/she did not inform in advance that he/she could not have personality disorders and skills on the boundary line.

3. Determination

A. The above facts of recognition.

arrow