beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of Paragraph 1.
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that D, which was introduced by the Defendant, was a female who had been married with the Plaintiff from the beginning to the Republic of Korea without the intention to marrying with the Plaintiff, and actually left the Plaintiff before the commencement of marriage. The Defendant was well aware that D had no intention to marry with the Plaintiff.
In addition, at the time of the instant contract, the Defendant did not prepare and deliver the contract to the Plaintiff in violation of Article 10 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act (hereinafter “Marriage Business Act”), and did not provide D’s personal information in writing to the Plaintiff in violation of Article 10-2 of the same Act, and provided the Plaintiff with false information in violation of Article 12 of the same Act.
Therefore, the plaintiff cancelled the contract of this case on the ground that the above reasons attributable to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages or unjust gains for marriage brokerage expenses of KRW 24 million, a solatium of KRW 30 million, and damages for delay.
B. First of all, as to the existence of the Defendant’s cause attributable to the Defendant, whether the Defendant was aware of the Defendant’s genuine marital intent to D, as seen earlier, that D’s entry into the Republic of Korea and left 56 days only after the Plaintiff’s living together with the Plaintiff. However, the fact and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff had already been aware that the Defendant did not have a genuine marital intent to D.
It is insufficient to recognize that such circumstances could have been known if they were to have fulfilled their duty of care in good faith, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
In addition, Article 12 of the Marriage Brokers Act is applied only to the evidence submitted by the plaintiff.