beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant who worked at the main point of the trade name “C” around the end of March 2014, and came to be hedging with the Defendant around October 2016 while engaging in a teaching system with the Defendant.
B. From October 6, 2014 to September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 146,00,000 to the Defendant as living expenses, etc. over a total of 20 times.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 5-1 through 21, Gap evidence 7, the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant did not love the plaintiff and did not have the intention to marry with the plaintiff, "I will return to the plaintiff by marriage with the plaintiff" means "I will return to the plaintiff by marriage with the plaintiff," and deceiving the plaintiff by using telephone or text message, etc. with a sexual intercourse, etc., and by deceiving the plaintiff, he was paid 146,00,000 won in total as living expenses, etc. during the above teaching period from the plaintiff, and the defendant is obligated to pay 146,00,000 won to the plaintiff as compensation for damages caused by the above unlawful act.
B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 146,00,000 to the Defendant as living expenses, etc. from October 6, 2014 to September 30, 2016 is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 146,00,00 to the Defendant as well as living expenses. However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion on whether the Defendant acquired the above money by deceiving the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, only by the descriptions of the health certificate, Gap’s 1 through 4, 6, and 7, and there is no other
(A) The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant on charges as alleged above, but the Defendant was subject to a disposition of non-prosecution on March 17, 2017. In addition, since the Plaintiff, among the Plaintiff’s allegations, donated the said money under the circumstances where the Plaintiff was erroneous due to the Defendant’s deception, the said contract for the said donation was revoked on the grounds of the Defendant’s deception.