beta
Text
1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.
(a) KRW 38,880,000 and KRW 19,440,00 among them shall be from March 16, 2018; and KRW 19,440,00.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Defendant, who entered into the instant visa execution contract, is a company engaging in the business of overseas immigration, study, investment, and vicarious execution of visa execution.
On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into each of the following contracts with the Defendant, who vicariously executes non-self-denunciation of permanent sovereignty in order to acquire the permanent residency of the United States of America with ASEAN C, D, and E:
- The type of acquiring visa: A non-employed person who is employed in the U.S. non-employed labor (for an employment company, a company that is a F in the U.S. Nos. Gankolian (NC): US$20,000 (in case of C, a down payment is added to 4.90,000 won): each of the above visa - The defendant's obligations are counseling, non-self-employed agency, necessary documents guidance and preparation, preparation of a business plan, preparation of a business plan, guidance on physical examination and identity inquiry, guidance on departure preparation, provision of information on local settlement, etc.
B. After entering into each of the instant contracts with the Defendant, the Plaintiff paid 60,000 US$20,000 per capita (in the case of Nonparty C, 4,90,000 additional payment) to the Defendant’s account designated by the Defendant, in sequence, until October 2016.
C. A/P (the period for the investigation of the relevant case has occurred according to the consular decision of the consul in charge of examining whether a visa applicant will issue a visa) has been decided on the delay in issuance of visa applicants, and subsequent procedures for acquisition of visa have not been carried out for more than one year from the date of conclusion of the contract. On December 21, 2016, T/P (the transfer of visa to the pertinent U.S. government agency, etc. in case where it is necessary to examine or determine the scope of discretion for consular decision) has been decided and the deadline for the acquisition of visa has not been anticipated.
Around December 2016, the defendant sent a notice on the defendant's refund policy to customers, including the plaintiff, and explain the progress of the contract.