1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's assertion that D was operated by D

At the main point, sexual traffic was engaged in sexual traffic.

The plaintiff et al.

After setting the main points, the Defendant: (a) demanded the Plaintiff to take over the Defendant’s prepaid credit against D; and (b) preparation of a notarial deed on this issue; (c) on July 31, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed stating the purport of the claim that “The Defendant specified KRW 12,080,000 to the Plaintiff on July 31, 2017 as the due date for payment and the interest rate of KRW 25% on August 30, 2017; and (d) recognize the Defendant’s compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

Since then, the plaintiff is operated by the defendant

They worked at the main place (hereinafter referred to as the “instant main place”) and engaged in sexual traffic.

Ultimately, the claim based on the instant notarial deed is null and void based on the economic benefits provided to the Plaintiff in relation to commercial sex acts. This constitutes illegal consideration and thus the Defendant cannot claim the return thereof to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the instant notarial deed should be denied.

2. Determination as follows: (a) the summary of the instant case’s operation from July 31, 2017 to August 13, 2017 by the Plaintiff

In the process, the fact that the notarial deed of this case was prepared is no dispute between the parties.

However, only the above facts alone, the claim based on the notarial deed of this case was paid on the premise of sexual traffic.

The economic benefits related to sexual traffic or the economic benefits related to sexual traffic lack to be recognized as illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[Plaintiffs filed a complaint with D and Defendant on suspicion that D had forced the Plaintiff to engage in sexual traffic at E's home-place, and the Defendant, at the home-place of this case, mediated sexual traffic to the employees including the Plaintiff, but D and the Defendant are all suspected of being suspected (not subject to disposition of non-prosecution by the lack of evidence).