1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiffs is a notarial deed with the executory power of No. 332 of the law firm document, 2015.

1. The Defendant lent KRW 30,000,000 to Plaintiff B on March 4, 2015, and a notary public issued a notarial deed prepared by the law firm as of March 332, 2015 on the following day:

The judgment on April 2, 2015, on March 4, 2015, is rendered on April 2, 2015, Plaintiff B, Non-Party D (Limit 30,000,000 won) 30,000,000 as a joint and several surety due date for the lease of the principal debtor’s debt rate.

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.

In light of the following facts acknowledged by the Health Council, the parties to the instant case, the facts that there is no dispute between them, the entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including the paper numbers), the party examination results against the plaintiff Gap, and the purport of the entire pleading, the defendant.