beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.07.05 2015가단226706

청구이의

Text

1. The defendant's certificate No. 1595, No. 1878, No. 2010, No. 1878, which was issued by the defendant against the plaintiff B and A.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, who had worked for the management of female employees in an entertainment drinking house with the trade entertainment drinking house called “E” (hereinafter referred to as a “member”) with no dispute between the parties, lent money to the Plaintiffs who worked for entertainment establishments entertainment establishments, and received a notarial deed prepared by a notary public at the D Legal Office with the following contents:

No. 1595, Oct. 8, 2010, Plaintiff A B5,000 per annum 30% on August 30, 2010, Plaintiff B, No. 1878, Dec. 6, 2010, Plaintiff B, No. 1578,00,000 per annum 30% on December 2, 2010, 2010

A. Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a claim against a person who has engaged in an act of arranging sexual traffic or a person who has employed a person who has engaged in an act of selling sex in connection with the act of arranging sexual traffic shall be null and void regardless of the form or title of the contract. The illegal consideration as stipulated under Article 746 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the act of causing sexual intercourse and the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting, coercion, or coercion of sexual traffic, while employing a person who has sexual intercourse, cannot be claimed as illegal consideration, and furthermore, if the economic benefits that have been paid or related to sexual traffic as well as the economic benefits that have been provided as direct consideration for sexual traffic, they cannot be claimed as illegal consideration.

(Supreme Court Decision 2011Da65174 Decided June 14, 2013). B.

As to the instant case, there is no dispute between the parties.