Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Cho Young-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Nam-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 2009Da112127 Decided January 26, 2010

June 16, 201

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. The defendant's defendant's 1-Law Firm Kimhae & World 2009, No. 135 of 2009, and deed No. 318 of 2009, deed No. 318 of 2009, deed No. 133 of 2009, and deed No. 317 of 2009 against plaintiff 2 of 2009, and compulsory execution with each original of the No. 317 of the No. 2009, written deed No. 2009, March 23, 2009, shall be denied.

2. The defendant shall pay to each of the plaintiffs 10 million won with 20% interest per annum from November 4, 2009 to the day of Down payment.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The plaintiffs asserts as follows.

○ The Defendant, from February 16, 2009 to March 31, 2009, operated the “○○○” multi-sections at Gyeongnam-do Kim Jong-si (hereinafter address omitted), and the Plaintiffs worked as the multiple employees.

On February 5, 2009, Plaintiff 1 borrowed KRW 10 million from the Defendant on the early February 23, 2009, and prepared a notarial deed stating that Plaintiff 1 repaid KRW 10 million to the Defendant by March 5, 2009 as the law firm Kimhae & World Co., Ltd. No. 135 on February 5, 2009. On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff 1 borrowed KRW 9.7 million from the Defendant on March 23, 2009, and prepared a notarial deed stating that Plaintiff 1 paid KRW 22 million to the Defendant by April 23, 2009.

On February 5, 2009, Plaintiff 2 borrowed KRW 7 million from the Defendant on the early February 23, 2009, and prepared a notarial deed with the effect that Plaintiff 2 repaid KRW 7 million to the Defendant by March 5, 2009, with the law firm Kimhae & World certificate No. 133 on February 5, 2009, and the head of Gun/Gu borrowed KRW 11 million from the Defendant from the first policeman on March 23, 2009, and then on March 23, 2009, Plaintiff 2 paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant by April 23, 2009, and prepared a notarial deed with the content that Plaintiff 2 paid KRW 49% per annum to the Defendant on April 23, 2009.

○ The Plaintiffs received orders from the “○○○” multi-face and provided a prostitution against customers. In the event that the Plaintiffs did not engage in delivery and sale of coffees, teas, etc. during business hours, the Plaintiffs paid KRW 20,000 won per hour to the Plaintiffs, and the so-called “tex” cost to Nonparty 2, who was in charge of managing their multiple revenues.

○ The Defendant has mediated, forced, or cooperated with the Plaintiffs, and has lent money to the Plaintiffs working in the multi-faceted manner. As such, the Defendant’s lending to the Plaintiffs as above is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act and Article 20 of the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act, and each of the loans constitutes illegal consideration, and thus, the Defendant cannot claim against the Plaintiffs for the repayment of the principal and interest of each loan.

Therefore, compulsory execution of each notarial deed stated in the defendant's purport against the plaintiffs shall not be permitted, and the defendant is a tortfeasor who mediates, forced, or cooperates in the act of prostitution, and is obligated to pay damages to the plaintiffs each amount of KRW 10 million and damages for delay.

2. In light of the purport of the oral argument and the testimony of Nonparty 2 at the appellate court as well as the testimony of Nonparty 2 at the appellate court as well as the result of this court’s questioning, Nonparty 2, the Plaintiffs, and Nonparty 1 worked as an employee such as “△△△△△,” etc., at the Gyeongnam-do, and mainly worked for the delivery of coffee and teas. Nonparty 2, the Plaintiffs and Nonparty 1 suggested that multi-faceted businesses were defective to the Defendant around December 2008, and that the Defendant started his business with the “○○” multi-face and operated the business together with the Defendant’s money. When the Plaintiffs were delivered at the same time, Nonparty 2, a revenue manager of this court, and Nonparty 1 were forced to do so in advance or did not receive an order from the Defendant or an ex post facto, and there was no reason to acknowledge that the Plaintiffs were forced to do so in consideration of the Plaintiffs’ personal or ex post facto cooperation with the Defendant’s 2’s non-party’s contribution to delivery opportunities.

3. If so, all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance which cited them is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Judgment of the court below] Kim Jong-Un Kim Jong-soo