beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's selective claims added by this court shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing this case is as follows, except for the plaintiff's selective addition of the court of first instance to the judgment below as to the claim selected by the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s selective claim added by this Court
A. The plaintiff's assertion did not provide the plaintiff with personal information on foreign women who want to introduce under the international marriage brokerage contract concluded with the plaintiff (Articles 4 and 17) and the Marriage Brokers Business Act (Article 10-2) despite the duty to provide the plaintiff with the personal information in writing. The plaintiff did not deliver it to foreign women despite having received the dormitory expenses for foreign women introduced by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff did not deliver it to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's property damages amounting to KRW 1,5240,000 (i.e., KRW 1,680,000,000 for foreign women's dormitory expenses of KRW 8.4,000,000 for purchase of wedding products, KRW 4,80,000 for foreign women's money for 1,680,000,000 for purchase of wedding products, KRW 2,524,00,00 for foreign women's parents' expenses).
B. We examine ex officio the legality of the lawsuit regarding the Plaintiff’s selective claims added by this court.
In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff entered into an international marriage brokerage contract with the defendant on February 3, 2016 and paid 1,5240,000 won to the defendant for marriage with Vietnam's nationality. However, around July 2016, a female of Vietnam's nationality refused marriage with the plaintiff and did not enter into a marriage, and the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the brokerage commission, etc., and thereafter on September 7, 2016, the plaintiff requested the defendant to return the brokerage commission, etc., and then the defendant's "or three million won," or "or three million won, to the defendant on September 7, 2016."