1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Counterclaim Defendant is a person who is engaged in the international marriage brokerage business under the trade name of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Building 1209.

B. On December 1, 2012, the Counterclaim Defendant and the Counterclaim Defendant concluded an international marriage brokerage agreement (hereinafter “instant brokerage agreement”) with the Counterclaim Plaintiff on the condition that the Counterclaim Defendant and the Counterclaim Defendant act as a broker for international marriage with Vietnam women, and that the Counterclaim Plaintiff pay 9,000,000 won in return (hereinafter “instant brokerage agreement”). Around December 1, 2012, the Counterclaim Plaintiff paid 1,00,000 won to the Counterclaim Defendant as the down payment under the instant brokerage agreement.

C. Around December 9, 2012, the Counterclaim viewed the opposite contractual relationship with E, a female of Vietnam, as the introduction of the counterclaim Defendant, from Vietnam, but was unable to marry due to the said son’s consent. Around December 10, 2012, the Counterclaim Defendant introduced the F, a female of Vietnam, from another Vietnam, and promised to report the opposite contractual relationship again on or around December 10, 2012.

Since then, the Lessee returned from Vietnam to the Republic of Korea on December 14, 2014 after entering the F with marriage and completing the new marriage travel.

F had previously been married with male in the Republic of Korea and given birth to her child, but later had been divorced and returned to Vietnam, while the Lessee knew of such fact, he had to maintain marriage with F.

However, F does not enter the Republic of Korea because it did not prepare for entry into the Republic of Korea (Visa application).

On the other hand, the main lawsuit filed by the counterclaim Defendant against the counterclaim (the U.S. District Court High Court Decision 2014Kadan22799 introduced fees, etc.) was concluded on October 21, 2014 as withdrawal on the ground that the counterclaim Defendant did not appear on the date for pleading two times, and did not file an application for the fixed date designation within one month thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6 through 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

(a)a summary of the cause of the action 1.