대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.
3...
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on April 29, 2007, and KRW 5,000,000 on June 30, 2007 to the Defendant at 10% per each interest month. Since the remainder of the leased principal after appropriating the amount repaid by the Defendant for the principal and interest amounting to KRW 7,828,561, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said amount and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant paid all the above borrowed money to the plaintiff, and the borrowed money was derived from the so-called prepaid payment that lent money on the premise of commercial sex acts, and thus there is no obligation to pay the borrowed money as illegal cause.
2. Determination
A. Since the act of prostitution and the act of arranging, soliciting, inducing, inducing, or coercing it is against good morals and other social order, money, valuables, and other property gains provided as a means of inducing, inducing, or coercing sexual traffic in employing persons as well as persons who act of prostitution, are not allowed to claim a return of the money, valuables, and other property gains provided as illegal consideration. Furthermore, not only economic gains provided as direct consideration for sexual traffic but also economic benefits related to sexual traffic are not allowed to claim a return of the money, valuables, and other property gains provided as a means of inducing, inducing, or coercing sexual traffic.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27488, 27495 Decided September 3, 2004; Supreme Court Decision 201Da65174 Decided June 14, 2013, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da2748, 27495).
In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that a monetary lending agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is null and void, by recognizing that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant under the premise that sexual traffic was committed, in full view of the witness testimony of this Court C, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
Therefore, the defendant's argument is justified.
① Both C and the Defendant are engaged in sexual traffic at a place of sexual traffic in D and E around April 2007, while engaging in sexual traffic.