The validity of the agreement to return the money and other valuables provided for gambling failure;

Money and valuables provided by a deceased person through gambling or gambling is illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, and thus an agreement to return money and valuables is null and void as an act contrary to the public order and good morals.

Article 708 of the former Civil Code

Plaintiff

Defendant

The unit of this prosecution shall be dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part concerning the main prosecution shall be borne by the defendant, and the part concerning the ancillary prosecution shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Defendant’s attorney revoked the original judgment. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid 400,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff). The supplementary prosecution is dismissed. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff in the first and second instances. The Plaintiff’s attorney is dismissed. The part against the Plaintiff in the original judgment is revoked. The Defendant paid 200,000 exchange to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is asserting that the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendant in the first and second instances.

The method of evidence of actual statement by both parties is the same as the factual time in the original judgment, and this is accepted by the person.

4. On May 16, 290, the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 et al. were boomed within the territory of the Young field in Seoul, and the defendant failed to refund gold 1,250,000 won on May 18, 190, and the defendant was frightd with the plaintiff's farm fright to return 00,000 won on the plaintiff's farm fright to the plaintiff's farm fright to the plaintiff's farm fright to the plaintiff's farm fright to the plaintiff's farm fright to return 00,000 won on the plaintiff's fright to the plaintiff's farm fright to the plaintiff's farm fright to the plaintiff's 00,000 won, and the plaintiff's fright to return 00,000 won on the plaintiff's fright to the plaintiff's fright to the plaintiff's fright to the plaintiff's fright to the plaintiff.

For the above reasons, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is reasonable, and it is dismissed because other plaintiff's claim of the first instance court is without merit, and the judgment of the court below is just and the incidental unit to the indictment of this case is without merit. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with Articles 384, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Gyeong-chul (Presiding Judge)