1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and Defendant B are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts to be cited or added as stated in the following Paragraph 2, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The following shall be added between the 7th written judgment of the first instance and the 3rd written judgment:

Although Defendant B had notified Defendant B of the implementation of the instant brokerage contract by fixing a reasonable period of time in order for the Plaintiff to cancel the instant brokerage contract, the instant brokerage contract cannot be deemed to have been rescinded, and even if the contract was rescinded, the Plaintiff and D completed marriage in Uzbekistan on or around December 8, 2014, and thus, the Plaintiff voluntarily rescinded the instant brokerage contract inasmuch as the marriage had already been married, and thus, the instant brokerage contract was rescinded due to the Plaintiff’s cause attributable to the Plaintiff. The terms and conditions constituting the terms and conditions of the instant brokerage contract (hereinafter “instant terms and conditions”).

According to Articles 4(2), 4(3), and 6(7), Defendant B, who is an international marriage broker, is obligated to review whether personal information related to marriage is personal information related to marriage and decide whether to be qualified as a member, and if an international marriage of a member is married, a foreign spouse is obligated to enter the Republic of Korea and the foreign spouse may begin a real marriage life. Therefore, the Ministry of Justice’s notification in the enforcement of the Ministry of Justice has the obligation to verify whether the Plaintiff satisfies the income requirements to invite foreigners for the purpose of marriage and stay, and to begin a real marriage life.

Nevertheless, as seen earlier, Defendant B did not know of the changed public notice of Ministry of Justice, thereby inviting the Plaintiff’s spouse.