beta
Text
1. On September 2015, the Plaintiff’s principal and interest at KRW 6 million based on a monetary loan agreement against the Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 2015, the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff through a job placement office, and paid the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 6 million in advance to the Plaintiff and employed the Plaintiff.
B. From around that time to October 18, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) worked in the “Cdab” operated by the Defendant; and (b) provided next delivery to customers; and (c) provided a prostitution against customers.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. provides that a claim against a person who has engaged in the act of arranging sexual traffic or a person who has employed a person who has engaged in the act of selling sex in relation to 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 traffic is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing and coercing sexual traffic and the act of inducing and coercing sexual traffic is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting and coercing sexual traffic in employing a person who has sexual intercourse constitutes illegal consideration and cannot be claimed for return thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27488, 27495, Sept. 3, 2004). Furthermore, if economic benefits related to sexual traffic as well as the direct consideration of sexual traffic are paid or related to sexual traffic, it shall not be viewed.
(Supreme Court Decision 2011Da65174 Decided June 14, 2013). B.
In full view of the above facts of recognition and the purport of the entire arguments, the Plaintiff may not choose a prostitution due to the economic burden, such as the aforementioned prepaid payment repayment obligation.