1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into an international marriage brokerage contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant, who is engaged in the international marriage brokerage business in the name of “C” and paid a total of KRW 24 million to the Defendant.

B. On September 14, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant left the Republic of Korea together with the Philippines.

On September 29, 2011, the Plaintiff returned to Korea on September 29, 201, after having met or married a Korean national D (hereinafter referred to as “D”).

C. On November 5, 2011, the Plaintiff left the Republic of Korea with the Philippines and reported the marriage with D to the authorities of the Philippines, and returned to the Republic of Korea on December 9, 2011.

On June 27, 2012, the Plaintiff returned to the Republic of Korea on July 26, 2012 after departing from the Philippines to resolve D’s visa issues.

D entered Korea on July 31, 2012, and began to live together with the Plaintiff. On September 25, 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff started to live at the Plaintiff’s home.

D currently stays in Korea.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a dispute, Gap evidence 4, 17, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that D, which was introduced by the Defendant, was a female living in Korea without the intention to marry with the Plaintiff from the beginning, and returned to 55 days after the Plaintiff’s living together with the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was well aware that D had no intention to marry with the Plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant did not prepare and deliver the contract to the plaintiff at the time of the contract in violation of Article 10 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act, and did not provide D's personal information to the plaintiff in writing in violation of Article 10-2 of the same Act.

Therefore, the defendant shall be deemed to have failed to perform the contract of this case, and since the plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case on its ground, the defendant shall be liable for material and mental damages suffered by the plaintiff.

(b) Determination D. D.