1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts as follows. A.

The defendant is a person who operated the C International Marriage Information in Daejeon.

B. On December 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into an “international marriage contract” with the Defendant.

The above contract provides that the defendant introduces the plaintiff the unmarried women living in the Philippines, guarantees the identity of the unmarried women, and brings continuous interest to allow women to enter Korea to live a marriage life.

C. On December 24, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,500,00 to the Defendant under the said international marriage contract, on condition that the unmarried women in the Philippines come to Korea.

However, the Defendant introduced, and entered the Republic of Korea in writing, was not allowed to be the visa on September 2013, 2013, and the Defendant did not participate in the visa re-application at the time of the application for visa re-application on June 2014, and it was found that the said female was pregnant of the son of the Philippines, and thus the visa was not allowed to be returned to Korea.

E. When the Defendant entered into an international marriage contract with the Plaintiff and received KRW 12,500,00,000, the Defendant did not perform this, but discontinued the said marriage information company.

F. In light of the Defendant’s breach of a contract, the Plaintiff was unable to marry with the Defendant’s female, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, 12,500,000 won paid by the Plaintiff under an international marriage contract, 2,400,000 won transferred by the Plaintiff to the Republic of Korea, 1,200,000 won for aviation fees incurred by the Plaintiff who visited the Republic of Korea twice in the Philippines, and 5,00,000 won for damages incurred by the Plaintiff, and 21,000,000 won for one-time, respectively.

2. In full view of the statements in Gap’s evidence Nos. 5 through 7, and 9, the defendant did not guarantee the identity of women of the Philippines in violation of the international marriage contract.

(b).