logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원영덕지원 2016.02.17 2015가단1272
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. If judgment Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff was introduced to the defendant on or around February 20, 2010 through Dong Jae, and Eul agreed to lend 43 million won to the defendant on behalf of the plaintiff (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). Accordingly, the defendant was prepared and delivered a loan certificate to the defendant that he borrowed 43 million won as principal, and the defendant received 43 million won from the plaintiff, etc. immediately thereafter.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 43 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The purport of the assertion is that the instant loan constitutes illegal consideration as a claim related to prostitution, and the Plaintiff cannot seek the return thereof to the Defendant.

B. 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 it is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing and coercing a person to do so is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting, coercing, or coercing sexual traffic while employing a person who has engaged in a sexual intercourse, cannot be claimed as illegal consideration, and furthermore, it is premised or paid on sexual traffic as well as economic benefits provided as direct consideration for sexual traffic.

arrow