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

A. On June 7, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, up to July 3, 2011, set up a notarial deed of debt repayment contract (No. 857, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 857, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No. 2011, No.

B. On July 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) received a claim seizure and collection order from the Suwon District Court 2015TT No. 13572, and performed compulsory execution against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, while engaging in the act of prostitution at the sidewalk operated by the Defendant, prepared the instant notarial deed by receiving KRW 13 million under the pretext of prepaid. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s payment of prepaid money to the Plaintiff is in violation of good customs and other social order, and thus, it cannot claim for return of illegal consideration as illegal consideration, and therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff should be denied.

Therefore, the Defendant forced the Plaintiff to engage in sexual traffic only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4.

In order to use it as a means to induce or force commercial sex acts or as a means to prevent escape from commercial sex acts establishments, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff prepare the notarial deed of this case while providing 13 million won in advance to use it as a means to prevent escape, and there is no evidence otherwise.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.