beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. In full view of the purport of subparagraph 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim Gap and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff can be acknowledged to have lent KRW 3,000,000 to the defendant on August 12, 2003. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant's assertion that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff. Even if the defendant's obligation to borrow money is recognized for the defendant, this constitutes a claim arising from an illegal cause related to sexual traffic, and thus there is no obligation to
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 with respect to 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 a case where the act of causing sexual traffic is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing sexual traffic and the act of inducing sexual intercourse is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as the means of inducing sexual traffic, etc. while employing a person who has engaged in sexual intercourse, cannot be claimed as illegal consideration, and furthermore, if the economic benefits that have been paid or related to sexual traffic are premised on the direct consideration of sexual traffic, as well as the economic benefits that have been paid for sexual traffic, they shall not be claimed as illegal consideration.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da65174 Decided June 14, 2013, etc.). C.
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, it is based on the testimony and overall purport of pleading of the witness C in the trial.