1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted a request from the non-party 1 to receive compensation in accordance with the construction plan for the new city. The non-party 2 asked the non-party 2, who was a member of the Sungnam-si Council at the time. The non-party 2 asked the non-party 3, a police officer, and the non-party 4, who is a person in charge of compensation affairs for the land development project, to buy the non-party 1's request. The non-party 1 asked the non-party 1's request. The non-party 1 issued 50,000 won to the plaintiff on July 1991, the non-party 1 issued the above 31,00,000 won to the non-party 2, and it was found that the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 5, who is the plaintiff's wife, was not subject to the punishment of the non-party 1's criminal execution of the non-party 1's bill.

2. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that: (a) the amount of KRW 50,00,000 paid by Nonparty 1 in return for solicitation to the Plaintiff constitutes illegal consideration as money for illegal purposes; and (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for the Promissory Notes issued as a promise to return profits and compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed issued by the Plaintiff to Nonparty 1, who is well aware of such circumstances by returning the said money to Nonparty 1; and (c) the Plaintiff’s claim that the instant promissory Notes issued as a promise to return profits and the instant compulsory execution based on the said notarial deed

However, an agreement that stipulates that one of the parties shall make a special solicitation and pay money to the other party with respect to matters concerning the duties of a public official is an invalid agreement contrary to social order (see Supreme Court Decision 71Da1645, Oct. 11, 1971). Accordingly, the return of the consideration cannot be claimed pursuant to Article 746 of the Civil Act. Furthermore, the agreement that the return of the consideration and the return of the money are made is null and void as it is in the category of claim for the return of the illegal consideration (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da520, Mar. 22, 191). Even if a promissory note was issued pursuant to the return agreement, the obligee may not claim the performance of the agreement.

In this case, as above, the court below acknowledged the fact that the above Kim Jong-hwan made a solicitation to the plaintiff about the matters concerning the official duties of the public official and paid money in return, and that a promissory note was issued in the future and a notarial deed was made up on that basis, the defendant cannot claim the payment of the above promissory note pursuant to Article 746 of the Civil Code, and therefore, it shall not be allowed to enforce compulsory execution on the basis of the above notarial deed (as a record, the defendant seems to have been aware of all the above facts from the beginning). The court below's rejection of the defendant's assertion of illegal consideration without any specific reason is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 746 of the Civil Code, which led to a failure to exhaust all deliberation. Thus, the argument pointing this out is

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)