beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Although Nonparty C, the Plaintiff’s argument, as was by deceiving Nonparty D’s wife, to be able to study at the school of “Kring” located in the UK Rosth World, was paid KRW 74,57,00 in total from the Plaintiff until February 15, 2016, Nonparty C did not implement the agreement by allowing the Plaintiff to study at the school of “G Dozppphin Schlo” located in the UK, despite the fact that Nonparty C was paid KRW 74,57,00 in total from the Plaintiff until February 15, 2016. The Defendant, together with C, induced the Plaintiff by jointly operating a study institute.
Accordingly, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to compensate for the total amount of KRW 68,883,00,000, which is the sum of KRW 10,000,000, which is the damage suffered by the plaintiff, and KRW 58,883,00,00, which was agreed by C, except for DNA expenses.
2. Determination:
A. According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5 (including virtual numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff was introduced from Non-Party E and consulted about study in the UK in C and D. The plaintiff paid KRW 74,57,00 on nine occasions during nine occasions during the study from October 30, 2015 to February 15, 2016, and Eul agreed to return KRW 58,83,00 on October 1, 2016 to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff entered the "Kring" Doopin Schlol, which is not the "Schlol," and that the plaintiff returned KRW 58,883,00.
B. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Defendant, along with C, operated the UAD.
Even if such circumstance alone does not necessarily lead to the establishment of a joint tort between the defendant and C. According to the above facts, the plaintiff and D actually engaged in the work related to study in Korea, and the persons agreed upon the return of expenses incurred in study from the plaintiff after receiving the expenses incurred in study from the plaintiff appear to be C. Thus, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone that the defendant committed any specific act related to the above act in Korea.