2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay KRW 18,786,176 to the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The reasoning of this court's decision is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the newly asserted matters in the court of first instance, and it is identical to that of the court of first instance. Thus, it is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The defendants' assertion

The motive for which the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt owed to Nonparty 1’s joint Defendant 2 to Nonparty 1’s credit union is to receive advance payment from Nonparty 2, a mast of the entertainment tavern “○○○”. Meanwhile, such advance payment is a means for soliciting, inducing, arranging, or coercing the Defendants’ act of prostitution. The aforementioned motive at the time of the instant loan was indicated or known to Nonparty 1’s credit union. Thus, the Defendants’ joint and several surety contract is null and void.

(b) Markets:

On the other hand, even if the contents of the rights and obligations, which are the object of the legal act, are not only in violation of good morals and other social order, and the contents themselves are not in violation of social order, the act of anti-social order, which is null and void under Article 103 of the Civil Act, includes not only the case where the contents of the rights and obligations, which are the object of the legal act, violate good morals and other social order, are legally forced, or the juristic act is in violation of social order conditions or monetary consideration, and the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party, is anti-social order (Supreme Court Decision 92Da719 delivered on November 27, 1992). However, there is no evidence consistent with the facts that the Defendants jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to receive advance payment from the non-party 2 at the time of the loan in this case, and there is no reason to acknowledge the aforementioned defense by the defendants to the non-party 1, the testimony of the non-party 4-1 through 5, 6, and the non-party 1 witness.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants, as joint and several sureties of the loan of this case, are obligated to pay the plaintiff 18,786,176 won for late payment damages for the loan of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim seeking such payment is justified. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Seo-soon (Presiding Judge)