beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On November 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an international marriage brokerage contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with D, an employee of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), whereby the amount of brokerage is KRW 18 million, and the Defendant is the representative director of C.
B. On November 24, 2013, the Plaintiff, as the introduction of D, married on December 25, 2013, after having the nationality E (E; hereinafter “E”) of the Republic of Uzbekistan (hereinafter “E”) in the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Republic of Uzbekistan (hereinafter “E”), and reported the marriage to the head of Yangsan-si on December 30, 2013.
C. On August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for annulment of marriage against E with the Busan Family Court 2014da7632, and was sentenced to the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on August 13, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, and 9 and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's employee D prepared a false brokerage contract, and did not provide personal information as stipulated in Article 10-2 of the Marriage Brokers Business Management Act for E (hereinafter "Marriage Business Act") before he/she arranged for E and her. The plaintiff suffered a total loss of KRW 29,530,000 (=18,000,000 won for international marriage) (i.e., KRW 15,530,00 won for international marriage). Thus, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff under Article 25 (1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act as the marriage broker, or is liable for employer as D's employer.
The defendant asserts that as the representative director of C did not fulfill his duty of care as a good manager with respect to the implementation of the contract of this case, he shall be liable for damages.
B. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant is a party to the instant contract pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Marriage Brokers Business Act. Rather, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 7, the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract with C as the other party, and the brokerage payment is made to C.