[2] In a case where there is a mandatory law explicitly excluding the validity of other certain juristic acts related to the pertinent juristic act, which is discussed whether the pertinent juristic act is against social order, matters to be considered when determining whether the pertinent juristic act is against social order

[2] If there is a mandatory law that explicitly excludes the validity of other certain juristic acts related to the pertinent juristic act, which is discussed whether it is anti-social or not, it is not appropriate that two juristic acts take social or economic relations into account in the context of a specific living relationship, and thus, it would be inappropriate that the prohibition under the mandatory law would be excessive to other juristic acts through the composition of the law that is a juristic act contrary to social order in the context of a certain social and economic relationship, and whether the pertinent juristic act is not a general provision, the contents of which are not clear, in accordance with Article 103 of the Civil Code, which is a general provision of which the norm is not clear, to impose an unfair burden on the transaction or to lower a legitimate expectation of the parties, etc., in determining whether the pertinent juristic act is against social order, and shall also

1. “Juristic act contrary to social order” under Article 103 of the Civil Act includes not only cases where the contents of rights and obligations, which are the object of a juristic act, violate good morals and other social order, but also cases where the juristic act has the nature of anti-social order because it is legally enforced, or it is under a condition or pecuniary consideration contrary to the foundation of social order, even though its contents themselves are not contrary to social order, and where the juristic act has the nature of anti-social order, and where the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is contrary to social order (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da56833, Feb. 11, 200).

In addition, if there is a mandatory law that explicitly excludes the effect of other certain juristic acts related to the pertinent juristic act, which is discussed whether it is anti-social or non-social, it is inappropriate to bring about the effect of the mandatory law to any other juristic act through the composition of the law that is a juristic act contrary to social order by bringing about a certain social and economic relationship in a specific context of a certain living relationship. In addition, it is not appropriate to bring about the prohibition of the mandatory law into the other juristic act through the composition of the law that is a juristic act contrary to social order. Whether the pertinent juristic act is not a general provision, the contents of which are not clear, to impose an unfair burden on the transaction or to lower the legitimate expectations of the parties, etc., in determining whether the pertinent juristic act is in violation of social order.

2. According to the records, Nonparty 1’s joint and several sureties’s loan agreement was rendered by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 on the premise that the Defendants were forced to borrow money to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions, and that the Defendants were forced to borrow money to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions, and that the Defendants were forced to borrow money to Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions, and that the Defendants were forced to borrow money to Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions that were offered to Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions that were offered to Nonparty 3 and Defendant 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions that were offered to Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions that were offered to Nonparty 3 and Defendant 2 for their respective loan terms and conditions. However, Nonparty 2 and Defendants were offered to Nonparty 2 and Defendant 2 as joint and several 3’s respective loan terms and conditions.

Meanwhile, Article 4 subparag. 3 and subparag. 5 of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, Etc. (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Traffic, Etc., promulgated by Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004), which was enforced at the time of each of the instant joint and several sureties, prohibit not only the act of prostitution itself, but also the act of soliciting, inducing, arranging, or coercing the act of prostitution to do so (hereinafter “reconciliation, etc.”) and the act of demanding or promising to receive money, valuables, or other property benefits from a person who conducts such act for profit-making purposes or who cooperates with him, from among others, the claim against the person who conducts the above act of prostitution should be invalidated “ regardless of its form of the contract,” and Article 10 subparag. 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Prostitution, etc., regardless of the purport that the act of prostitution, etc., which occurred in our society, shall be excluded from the form of the above act of prostitution.

On the other hand, not only each of the above loans the Defendants received as a principal debtor but also each of the above joint and several suretiess of this case are acts performed in an indivisible relationship with each of the above loans for the same purpose as the receipt of advance payment and solicitation or good offices for the same purpose. In addition, the non-party 1 credit union, knowing that such acts were performed for the above purpose, becomes the counter-party to the guarantee, and thereby, made a loan to the non-party 2, thereby ultimately assisting the Defendants in forming an economic basis for which the Defendants were employed by the non-party 3, etc., and thus, made a fraudulent act. Accordingly, each of the above joint and several sureties of this case cannot be deemed as a juristic act contrary to social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, in light of the purport of the legal provisions related to

The judgment of the court below which held that each of the joint and several surety in this case is valid on different terms is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles as to legal acts against social order as stipulated in Article 103 of the Civil Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)