1. The plaintiff's claim that the court changed in exchange is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s total costs of litigation.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates C Child Care Center (hereinafter “Child Care Center”), and the Defendant is a person who sells teaching materials, teaching tools, etc. related to child care centers under the trade name “D.”

B. In order to be supplied with various kinds of teaching materials necessary for the authorization of the instant childcare center’s business, the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant on June 12, 2013, and KRW 3,200,000 on December 11, 2013, and KRW 200,000 on January 9, 2014, and KRW 7,000,000 on January 23, 2014, and KRW 6,30,000 on March 20, 2014, and KRW 10,000 on June 30, 2014, and KRW 38,50,000 on June 30, 2014.

C. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff obtained authorization for the instant childcare center business.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was paid 38,500,000 won or more under the pretext that the Plaintiff supplied various kinds of teaching materials, etc. necessary for authorization prior to obtaining authorization for the instant childcare center business.

However, to obtain authorization of the instant childcare center, the Defendant did not supply the Plaintiff with goods equivalent to the price for the said goods even until July 20, 2014, on which the date of the on-site confirmation is affixed by the authorizing agency, and the Plaintiff unilaterally delivered the goods after obtaining authorization of the instant childcare center on July 29, 2014.

In addition, some of the materials delivered among the materials can not receive education on the use of teaching materials because the supplier loses the branch right for the teaching materials, and some of them were supplied at prices significantly lower than the market price.

As such, the defendant deceivings the plaintiff to acquire KRW 38,50,000 from the plaintiff, as he would not be able to appropriately supply the goods such as various teaching tools necessary for the authorization of the business of the child care center, even though it was not capable of properly supplying them.