1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

The Defendant worked in the “D” entertainment tavern (hereinafter “instant entertainment tavern”) located in C from January 2006 to March 2006, and around 2005, the Plaintiff operated the entertainment tavern along with his wife E in the vicinity of the instant entertainment tavern, and around 2007, operated the instant entertainment tavern along with E.

On January 12, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 11,00,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”). On February 22, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted an authentic deed of money loan agreement as a notary public’s F Office No. 448 on March 12, 2006, with the interest rate of the instant loan 60% per annum and the due date as of March 12, 2006.

Until June 5, 2006, the Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 2,740,000 of the principal out of the instant loans.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff lent money to 5-6 entertainment tavern business owners with the introduction of entertainment tavern business owners, similar to this case, to 5-6 entertainment tavern business owners.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole argument by the parties to the plaintiff as to the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul's evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole argument is as follows: the plaintiff made the instant loan to the defendant with the introduction and guarantee of the non-party G who worked in the same entertainment drinking house as the operator of the instant entertainment drinking house was known, and the defendant was unaware of engaging in commercial sex acts,

First, the plaintiff operated the entertainment tavern in this case with his wife at the time of the lending of this case, and the defendant was engaged in sexual traffic several times with the plaintiff's introduction.

Therefore, the instant loan constitutes illegal consideration inasmuch as the Defendant’s work in the instant entertainment tavern and paid to the Plaintiff on the premise that sexual traffic is conducted.

Second, the extinctive prescription of the instant loan claim was completed five years after the due date for payment with commercial bonds.

Determination (whether extinctive prescription has been completed) shall be made by commercial law.