1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 105,00,000 and Defendant C with respect thereto from December 10, 2013, and Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2012, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million in the name of PR expenses (any condition that is returned in case of retirement before the above sales) to Defendant B while working in Defendant B, an entertainment tavern for the operation of the Plaintiff, in return for the achievement of KRW 500 million. The Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million in addition to PR expenses.

Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation to refund the above PR costs and the loan loan obligation (hereinafter “instant guarantee”).

B. Defendant B, while serving in the said entertainment tavern, discontinued the said entertainment tavern business without having repaid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 60 million from February 14, 2013 to October 18, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant B: Service by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act); Defendant C: The absence of dispute; each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the remainder of KRW 140 million to the Plaintiff (=20 million - 60 million) and damages for delay.

B. Defendant C’s assertion 1) The obligation of Defendant C to the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed by Defendant C is a prepaid payment provided to employees of entertainment establishments. The above principal obligation is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, and cannot be claimed for return of illegal consideration. As such, Defendant C’s joint and several liability against the Plaintiff is also null and void in accordance with the principle of non-performance of the guaranteed obligation. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that PR expenses and loans provided by the Plaintiff to Defendant C are provided as means of inducement and coercion of commercial sex acts contrary to good morals and other social order. Defendant C’s above assertion is without merit. Defendant C again asserts that the instant guarantee is revoked pursuant to Article 110 of the Civil Act, since it is based on the coercion of the Plaintiff.

However, Defendant C.