1. The defendant's notary public C belonging to the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff was prepared on August 2, 2004, No. 8679.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2004, the Plaintiff worked as female employees at “D” entertainment establishments located in Ulsan-gu (hereinafter “instant entertainment establishments”).

B. On August 2, 2004, the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party E entrusted C with the notary public belonging to the Ulsan District Prosecutors' Office on August 2, 2004, and had the notarial deeds of debt repayment contract (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) No. 8679 (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) (hereinafter "notarial deeds of this case"), which contain the following contents:

“E shall approve that the Defendant bears the obligation of KRW 63 million on February 3, 2004, and shall pay the above obligation by August 9, 2004, and shall determine the interest rate and delay damages rate by 60% per annum. The Plaintiff shall jointly and severally guarantee the above obligation to the Defendant. E, if the Plaintiff fails to perform the above obligation, it shall recognize that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution.” [Grounds for Recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 2 through 4, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's major assertion (1) The defendant employed E and the plaintiff to arrange sexual traffic, etc.

In the course of employment of E, the defendant paid a monetary amount under the name of "prepaid payment", and had the plaintiff who is not capable of accepting the defendant's demand jointly and severally surety E, and had the plaintiff prepare the notarial deed of this case.

The instant notarial letter is based on a juristic act contrary to good morals and social order, and thus constitutes illegal consideration, and thus, the instant notarial deed is also null and void.

(B) In addition, a pecuniary obligation under the notarial letter of trust of this case is a commercial obligation arising in relation to the business of the defendant, a merchant.

The above debt has already been extinguished by the lapse of five years of extinctive prescription period of commercial bonds.

(C) Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the instant notarial deed against the Plaintiff should be denied.

(2) The defendant's assertion (A) is the defendant.