1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 15,00,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from December 12, 2012 to February 6, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 16, 2011, the Defendant is a person operating an international marriage broker in the name of “C,” and the Plaintiff entered into an international marriage broker agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”) with the Defendant, and paid a total of KRW 11 million, including marriage expenses.

B. On October 20, 201, the Plaintiff, along with the Defendant’s employees, introduced “D” (hereinafter “D”) on October 21, 201 with the introduction of the Republic of Korea, along with the introduction of the said employees, on October 20, 201, went through marriage in the Republic of Korea on October 29, 201. On October 30, 201, the Plaintiff returned to Korea and reported the marriage at that time.

C. After that, on January 3, 2012, D applied for a visa issuance to the Embassy of the Republic of Korea stationed in the Philippines, and conducted an interview on January 25, 2012. In the process of applying for a visa issuance by D, D’s application for a visa issuance was rejected on the grounds that it is difficult to determine that the Defendant’s side erred in giving guidance to the Plaintiff, thereby making it difficult to determine that D’s Plaintiff and D had engaged in a normal marriage for the following reasons:

① In relation to the Plaintiff’s arrival of D, the document written by the Plaintiff and D, on October 28, 201, states that “a wife was sent to the Republic of Korea-her marriage friendship,” but the Plaintiff’s grounds for invitation on November 30, 201, stated that “a marriage was married through an international marriage broker,” and the document written by D at the time of an interview on January 25, 2012, also states that “a first time was passed through a marriage broker through a marriage broker.”

② According to the marriage certificate of the Philippines, the time for marriage between the Plaintiff and D is indicated as 1 p.m., but D’s interview on January 25, 2012 is indicated as 6 p.m. time for marriage.

As such, D could not enter the Republic of Korea thereafter as the application for issuance of visa was rejected, D could not thereafter enter the Republic of Korea, and the Plaintiff visited the Philippines from June 9, 2012 to June 17, 2012 to meet the deniedr D to make a normal matrimonial relationship.