B. Whether the act of confidential remittance to commit a crime evading customs duties constitutes illegal consideration (affirmative)

(b)the act of entrusting a confidential remittance to a person who has not obtained authorization in exchange to commit a crime of evading customs duties on imported goods amounting to remittance constitutes illegal consideration as stipulated in Article 746 of the Civil Code, which is contrary to good morals and social order;

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The purport of the provision of Article 746 of the Civil Act concerning illegal consideration is that a person who, along with Article 103 of the Civil Act, commits an act which has no social validity and the basic concept of the private law represents the law that makes it impossible to seek restitution by asserting the invalidity of his own illegal act regardless of its form, and does not limit only the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment, and it is not allowed for a person who paid the money due to illegal cause to claim restitution of the money based on the premise that the payment of the money is made pursuant to the remittance consignment agreement (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da520 delivered on March 22, 191).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in the case where the plaintiff, who is a package import processing distributor, entered the import price under the letter of credit at a price lower than the actual transaction price in importing a package of paper, agreed to pay the remaining amount through the issuing bank and deliver 80,230,000 won to the exporter to the defendant on May 9, 1981, and requested a foreign exporter to transfer the equivalent U.S. dollars to the secret interest and request the return of the delivered amount to the foreign exporter. However, in the case where the plaintiff requested the above remittance entrustment contract to the defendant who did not transfer the money in accordance with the above purport, the court below rejected customs duties on the imported goods equivalent to the remittance amount without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy under the Foreign Exchange Control Act, and the defendant also rejected the plaintiff's claim for illegal consideration in violation of Article 1631 of the former Foreign Exchange Control Act (amended by Act No. 4447 of Dec. 27, 191) and Article 168 of the former Customs Act (amended by Act No. 163716 of the same Act).

According to the records, it seems that the act of entrustment of confidential remittance at least falls under the reserve prescribed in Article 182 (2) of the above Act for the evasion of customs duties, and in light of the evidence relations and the legal principles of the above precedents, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law such as the violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of legal principles, and the party members' decision that the lawsuit

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.