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

A. On May 13, 2015, in order to lend money to Nonparty C, the Plaintiff entered a place where the Defendant, C, and D, etc. are gambling, upon the Defendant’s request, lent a total of KRW 15 million with money for gambling (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. As above, the Plaintiff was convicted of criminal facts that lent gambling money to the Defendant and C (C Changwon District Court Jinwon Branch Branch Branch 2016MaMa12), and the Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 5 million on the ground that the Defendant, while having no intent and ability to repay, obtained a fine of KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 5 evidence, Eul 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff shall pay the Plaintiff the amount that the Defendant received from the Plaintiff, since the Defendant acquired the payment without any legal ground, upon the occurrence of payment under the loan agreement of this case, which is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act. (2) A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was a benefit for an illegal cause as prescribed in Article 746 of the Civil Act, and that there is only such illegal cause, or that there is only the beneficiary, or that there is no illegality of the provider, compared to the fact that the provider’s wrongful nature is considerably larger than that of the provider, the provider cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the beneficiary on the ground that the act of cause is legally null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da16499, May 29, 2014). Even if the Defendant borrowed the money from the Plaintiff and had the intent to repay it, the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s intent and the Plaintiff’s aforementioned money delivery.