logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.12.27 2016가단206007
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion began to work in the entertainment tavern “D” (hereinafter “instant entertainment tavern”) from early July 2015, and borrowed KRW 15 million from E, the president of the instant entertainment tavern.

However, in the case of preparing a notarial deed directly in the name of E, E is likely to cause a problem, and E lends 15 million won to it, and the notarial deed of this case is prepared in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, since the notarial deed of this case is related to the obligation to pay in advance and is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act, it is sought to confirm that there is no obligation under the notarial deed of this case against

2. On the judgment, the defendant argues that he was merely a lending of the above money to the plaintiff upon the F's request, which was known to the general public, and that the above money was not known at all as a prepaid payment premised on the brokerage of commercial sex acts.

Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a claim that 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 such act shall be null and void regardless of the form or title of the relevant contract. The illegal consideration as stipulated under Article 746 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the act of causing it is contrary to good morals and other social order. The act of inducing and coercing the act of prostitution and the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order. As such, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting and coercing sexual traffic, while employing a person who has engaged in the act of prostitution, shall not be claimed as illegal consideration, and furthermore, it is premised on sexual traffic as well as economic benefits provided as direct consideration for sexual traffic.

arrow