1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The following facts may be found either as a dispute between the parties or as a whole as to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, 10, 16 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2.

On February 22, 2014, the head of the administrative office of a licensed administrative agent, entrusted by the defendant on a request for temporary release from custody to Vietnamese "C" (hereinafter "instant agency") who was detained in the protective facilities of a foreigner internment camp due to the violation of the Immigration Control Act due to disguised marriage as the defendant's relative, and received KRW 3,00,000 from the defendant on the condition that the remaining amount of money except for actual expenses of transportation expenses, etc. is returned if temporary release from custody to C is impossible.

B. The Plaintiff sought a request for temporary release from custody against C to the Ministry of Justice on the grounds of a divorce lawsuit filed with C and his/her spouse, but it was impossible to request C to grant temporary release from custody due to D’s failure to obtain D’s cooperation.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return the commission, but the Defendant did not pay only KRW 1,520,000 out of KRW 2,520,000 except for the actual expenses that the Plaintiff agreed to pay, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 1,00,000, the Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint on June 5, 2014.

On June 23, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the remainder of KRW 1,00,000,000, and on December 15, 2014, the Prosecutor of the Busan District Prosecutors’ Office received the disposition of non-prosecution on the charge of fraud due to the lack of evidence.

2. The plaintiff's assertion is a false fact that "the plaintiff concluded the instant agency contract without the intention and ability to conduct the instant agency business and acquired the agency expenses by deceit." However, the plaintiff received a disposition of non-prosecution to the effect that he/she was not guilty of the above alleged fraud, so the above complaint constitutes a tort, and therefore, the defendant constitutes a tort.