[1] In a case where a financial institution entered into a loan agreement with female employees of an entertainment establishment under the joint and several guarantee of an entertainment establishment owner, the case holding that the above loan agreement is null and void since it violated Article 103 of the Civil Act or Article 20 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act, and the joint and several guarantee agreement is also null and void depending on the subsidiary nature of

[2] In a case where a financial institution concluded a loan agreement with a female employee of an entertainment establishment under the joint and several guarantee of an entertainment establishment owner, etc., and thus becomes null and void due to a violation of Article 103 of the Civil Code, the case holding that the owner of an entertainment establishment, who is a malicious beneficiary, shall compensate for the unjust enrichment of the amount equivalent to the above loan and the damages equivalent to the agreed interest

[1] In a case where a financial institution entered into a loan agreement with a female employee of an entertainment establishment under the joint and several guarantee of an entertainment business owner, etc., the case holding that since the above financial institution entered into the above loan agreement even though it recognizes that the loan is used as a prepaid payment for the purpose of soliciting, inducing, arranging, or coercing female employee's prostitution, it is invalid in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act or Article 20 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging, etc. of Commercial Sex Acts, Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004), and the joint and several guarantee agreement is also void depending on the subsidiary nature

[2] In a case where the conclusion of a loan agreement with a female employee of an entertainment business under the joint and several guarantee of an entertainment business owner, etc. becomes null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Code, the case holding that in the case where a financial institution as a beneficiary is deemed null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Code, the illegality of the business owner of an entertainment business that received the above loan as a prepaid payment, etc. while the illegality of the financial institution is considerably weak, the owner of an entertainment business shall return the amount equivalent to the above loan as unjust enrichment, and as a beneficiary of bad faith

[1] Articles 103 and 430 of the Civil Act, Article 20 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004) (see Article 10 (1) of the current Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic) / [2] Articles 2, 103, 430, 746, and 748 (2) of the Civil Act, Article 20 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (repealed by Article 2 of the Addenda to the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, Etc., Act No. 7196, Mar. 22, 2004)

The Liquidation Corporation (Attorney Lee Jin-jin, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Attorneys Noh Jeong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

February 1, 2008

1. Defendant 3 and 4 shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff 53,038,328 won and 35,000,000 won with 60% interest per annum from July 4, 2006 to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 and 2 is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 shall be borne by the said Defendants, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff 53,038,328 won and 35,000,000 won with 60% interest per annum from July 4, 2006 to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2002, the Ulsan Credit Union (hereinafter only referred to as the “Ulsan Credit Union”) set out and lent 35,00,000 won to Defendant 1 at the rate of 30% per annum, 60% per annum, damages for delay rate of 60% per annum, and February 5, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan”) under the joint and several guarantee by Defendant 2, 3, and 4.

B. However, on May 14, 2003, the Ulsan District Court declared bankrupt and appointed the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation as a trustee in bankruptcy.

C. On July 3, 2006, the Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation, a bankrupt bankruptcy trustee, transferred the instant loan claims against the Defendants to the Plaintiff, and on August 8, 2006, notified the Defendants of the assignment of claims.

D. Meanwhile, as of July 3, 2006, the transfer date of the instant loan remains in full of KRW 35,000,000 for the principal of the instant loan as of July 3, 2006, and the fixed delay damages amounted to KRW 18,038,328.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Gap 3's evidence 1, 4, Gap 4's evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 53,038,328 won (35,000,000 won + 18,038,328 won) and the agreed interest interest for the loan principal of KRW 35,00,000 among them.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant loan is for the payment of prepaid payments related to Defendant 1’s prostitution, and that the Ulsan Fuls also concluded the instant loan agreement with their own members despite being aware of such circumstances, it constitutes an act of soliciting, inducing, arranging, or forcing or cooperating with them for profit-making purposes, and thus constitutes an act of soliciting, soliciting, soliciting, arranging, or demanding a prostitution, and thus, it is null and void

Therefore, in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by adding to the testimony of the Non-Party 1 and 2 as well as the testimony of the Non-Party 1, the Ulsan 2 decided on February 5, 200 to execute a high interest rate of 0 entertainment tavern business and female employees who are limited to 300,000,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 40,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 50,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 1 and 40,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 50,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 1 and 00,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 1 and 30,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 1 and 40,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan 20,000 won for the purpose of this case’s loan.

C. Meanwhile, according to Article 746 of the Civil Act, if there is benefit for an illegal cause and the illegal cause exists in the provider, the beneficiary can not seek the return of illegal consideration, in principle, if the beneficiary's illegal cause is significantly larger than that of the provider. However, even if the beneficiary's illegal nature is considerably weak, it violates the principle of fairness and good faith. In such a case, the application of the main sentence of Article 746 of the Civil Act is excluded, and the beneficiary's claim for return is allowed (Supreme Court Decision 98Do2036 delivered on September 17, 199). Since the agreement on the loan of this case was entered into between the beneficiary and the beneficiary's non-performance of the above illegal cause and the beneficiary's non-performance of the loan of this case, the amount equivalent to the above loan of this case is considerably less than that of the provider's non-performance of the above loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's loan of this case's lender.

D. Accordingly, Defendant 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 53,038,328 won and 35,000,000 won among them, delay damages calculated at the rate of 60% per annum from July 4, 2006 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the above settlement base date.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 3 and 4 of this case is accepted on the grounds of merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 and 2 is dismissed on the grounds of merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Suyang-hee