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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On August 29, 2002, the non-party 1’s credit union extended a loan of KRW 40 million to Defendant 1 (non-party 2) on August 29, 2002, under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant 2 (Defendant 1 in the third instance, Defendant 1 in the second instance, Defendant 2 in the third instance, Defendant 4 (non-party 4 in the third instance), and Defendant 5 (non-party 3 in the third instance) on August 29, 2003, the agreed rate of KRW 30 per annum, and the delayed interest rate of KRW 60 million per annum (hereinafter “the instant loan”).

B. The balance of the instant loan was fully repaid as of July 2, 2006, and only KRW 18,786,176 was incurred due to delay in finalized damages.

C. Nonparty 1’s credit union was declared bankrupt by this court on May 14, 2003. On July 3, 2006, the bankruptcy trustee transferred the principal and interest interest claim of this case against the Defendants to the Plaintiff on July 3, 2006, and notified the Defendants thereof on August 10, 2006.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 18,786,176 won to the plaintiff for the final delay of the loan of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Determination on Defendant 2 and 3’s assertion

(1) The argument

On the same day as the instant loan, Defendant 1 jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant 2 and 3, and Defendant 2 and 3 jointly and severally guaranteed for the instant loan in the form of corresponding guarantee. As such, the instant loan is in an indivisible relationship with each of Defendant 2 and 3 for the payment of the pre-paid payment related to Defendant 2 and 3. Nonparty 1’s credit union concluded each loan agreement with Defendant 2 and 3, knowing the fact that the instant loan was for the payment of the pre-paid payment related to the instant prostitution. Since each of the loans was concluded with Defendant 2 and 3 upon knowing that Nonparty 1’s credit union was for the payment of the pre-paid payment related to the instant prostitution, each of them is null and void by Article 103 of the Civil Act or Article 20 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004). The joint and several guarantee agreement with Defendant 2 and 3 of the instant loan is also an indivisible act.

(2) Determination

Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 recognized that Defendant 1, the principal debtor of the instant loan, was engaged in the business of managing employees, such as Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, while working as the marina of the “○○○” entertainment drinking club operated by Defendant 4 and 5, and was not urged or forced to do so.

Therefore, the loan of this case cannot be deemed as a claim against a person who solicits and induces a prostitution or a person who cooperates therewith, and the loan of this case was made with Defendant 2 and 3 who recommended or forced a prostitution, and the loan of this case was jointly and severally guaranteed with each other in the form of mutual-guaranteed guarantee. Thus, the loan of this case cannot be deemed as null and void since the loan of this case is in an indivisible relationship with the loan of Defendant 2 and 3. Thus, Defendant 2 and 3's assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is with merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Gangwon-do