1. Regarding D’s speech training course contract for the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) in the Korean language with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into an agency contract with the Defendants for the course of language training in the Korean language language (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendants, as well as KRW 2 million under the pretext of contract deposit, etc.

B. On October 10, 2016, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 2670,00,000 as registration fees, additional registration fees, and dormitory expenses by having D enter the E University Korean language process in Busan, and by the Defendants, KRW 3.47,00,00 as registration fees.

(c)D was unable to enter the E University Korean language process;

On July 20, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants to the effect that the instant contract could not be performed due to the Defendants’ mistake, and reached the Defendants around that time.

Accordingly, on July 24, 2017, the Defendants sought the return of the money already paid to the Plaintiff by notifying the Plaintiff of the rescission of the instant contract, and the notification reached the Plaintiff around that time.

E. By April 25, 2018, the Plaintiff returned to the Defendants a total of KRW 8.14,000,000,000, out of the total amount received as the price for the instant contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 to 10, 17 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is a document to allow the Defendants to enter D in the course of Korean language at E University (hereinafter “instant document”).

The E University received D's entrance application.

However, at the time of receiving the instant documents, the Defendants are only the Plaintiff’s father F of “D” (hereinafter “F”).

The passport, like this D, was included in the documents of this case, stating that the foreigner of Uzbekistan nationality is a foreigner.

“The Court made the decision.”

However, in fact, F is the nationality of Thaia in the Republic of KIKO.