1. The defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs arising from an appeal and an incidental appeal shall be respectively.

1. The scope of this Court’s adjudication at the first instance court, based on the restitution to the original state following the cancellation of an international marriage brokerage contract with the Defendant, the Plaintiff claimed against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 7,900,000,000 paid on April 26, 2012, ② KRW 15,900,000 paid on October 26, 2012, ③ KRW 5,000, and ④ KRW 9,160,000 paid on October 26, 2012, ④ KRW 9,160,000 paid on October 29, 2012, ⑤ KRW 1,148,050 paid on February 18, 2013, KRW 38,208,050, and delay damages. The first instance court accepted only the above claim against the Defendant, and dismissed the remainder of the claim for delay damages.

The defendant appealed against the part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff in the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance as well as the incidental appeal only to the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of first instance. Thus, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against which the defendant appealed and considered it as the scope of objection, and

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into an international marriage brokerage contract with the Defendant, and paid KRW 7,00,000,000 to the Defendant on April 26, 2012, and KRW 5,00,000 on October 26, 2012, and KRW 9,160,000 on October 29, 2012, and the Defendant did not comply with the demand for the performance of the said contract. As such, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent for rescission of the said contract was delivered a written document as of April 19, 2016, which contained the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent for rescission of the said contract.

Therefore, the defendant shall return the above money paid to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. On April 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an international marriage brokerage agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant to mediate the Plaintiff’s international marriage on or around April 25, 2012; the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,000,000 to the Defendant on April 26, 2012 as the expenses for international marriage brokerage under the instant agreement; and the Defendant’s international marriage brokerage duty stipulated in the instant agreement until now.