beta
Text
1. All claims filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the counterclaim claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.
2. Of the costs of lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 8 and Eul evidence No. 1:
On October 21, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant, who is a marriage broker, to introduce China’s new surname from the Defendant to the marriage broker’s marriage history, and to pay the Defendant KRW 8,00,000 for the introduction fee (hereinafter “instant contract”). The main contents are as follows.
(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agree to recognize a “sex” in the event of the termination of a local marriage or similar marriage-related event, and the Defendant’s legal liability for the Plaintiff’s husband and wife terminates. As such, the Defendant’s joint liability for marriage between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband and wife after the Plaintiff’s return to Korea, shall be entirely recognized, and the Defendant would not raise any objection to this.
(2) In the course of proceeding the Plaintiff’s marriage to China, the Defendant promised not to bear any and all expenses on the part of the new father, and to repay the full amount at the time of going through.
B. On November 22, 201, the Plaintiff reported to the Republic of Korea the marriage of a female who was introduced by the Defendant, a Chinese woman “C” and November 22, 201, but C left China on June 19, 2012. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the said female to nullify marriage under the Seoul Family Court Decision 2012ddan49325, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 26, 2013.
2. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the principal claim: (a) although the Defendant agreed not to receive the money in full from the new father as expenses, the new father of China paid the amount equivalent to KRW 53,00,000 to the Defendant’s side; (b) there was no “C” to be a stroke or higher academic background of the new father; and (c) the Defendant was a member of the Plaintiff, such as the Plaintiff, in an unlawful manner without a partnership with the local marriage broker in China.