청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On June 11, 2015, D was indicted by the Seoul East Eastern District Court (2014dan2862) for the following facts: “D was engaged in sexual traffic while operating a commercial sex business establishment, “F,” located on the first floor of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City E, from August 3, 2014 to August 19, 2014, and from September 15, 2014 to September 22, 2014, and arranged sexual traffic.” The foregoing judgment was finalized on January 28, 2016.
B. On August 31, 2015, the Plaintiff borrowed 120 million won from the Defendant to the Defendant on August 31, 2015, “The Plaintiff borrowed 120 million won from the Defendant on August 31, 2015. The Plaintiff made installment payments of KRW 40 million on October 31, 2015, and KRW 80 million on April 30, 2016. The interest shall be paid by 2% on the last day of each month from September 2015 to the repayment date, and shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum on the delayed principal or interest at the rate of 25% per annum (hereinafter “notarial deed”).
C. On September 6, 2014, the Defendant remitted gold KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff. The Defendant wired gold KRW 16.2 million on August 31, 2015, which was the date of the preparation of the notarial deed, to transfer KRW 66.2 million to the Plaintiff.
In addition, from September 6, 2014 to April 30, 2016, the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 150,200,000 to D, and the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 40,000 to the Defendant on November 5, 2015, and KRW 80,000,000 each month from November 30, 2015 to April 30, 2016.
In addition, D remitted a total of KRW 156 million to the defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The plaintiff's assertion did not have received money based on the notarial deed of this case from the defendant.
The notarial deed of this case was prepared in the form of postal loan to the purport that the defendant would repay funds provided for the operation of the above D's sexual traffic business.
Therefore, this is due to illegal consideration, and it is based on the notarial deed of this case.