The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Party’s argument

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant drafted a written agreement on April 18, 2017 (hereinafter “instant agreement”). The content of the agreement is that the Defendant did not perform acts violating the lease agreement, such as having directors in the residence, which was living with the Plaintiff until the end of November, 2017, and did not perform acts violating the lease agreement, and the Defendant managed the Defendant’s revenues (such as wages, government subsidies, etc.) and the Defendant would compensate the Plaintiff for KRW 30 million in the event of the violation.

However, around May 2017, the Defendant arbitrarily went director in the Plaintiff’s residence, and violated the instant agreement by failing to pay the Plaintiff the income. As such, the Plaintiff sought 30 million won and damages for delay against the Defendant.

B. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant asserts that the agreement of this case is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code, or it is null and void in violation of Article 104 of the Civil Code, because it is an agreement contrary to public order and good morals in light of the process of preparation of the agreement.

2. Determination

A. “Juristic act contrary to social order” under Article 103 of the Civil Act includes not only cases where the contents of rights and obligations, which is the object of the juristic act, violate good morals and other social order, but also cases where the juristic act has the nature of anti-social order because it is legally forced or its contents are associated with conditions or monetary consideration contrary to the basis of social order, and where the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is anti-social order.

B. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da56833, Feb. 11, 2000).

The Plaintiff and the Defendant were in de facto marital relationship, and written the instant agreement on April 18, 2017. The Defendant: (a) arbitrarily between directors in the Plaintiff’s residence around May 2017; and (b) the Defendant from the time of the formation of the instant agreement to the date of the Plaintiff.