205da 84775 Objection

Roof00

Yellow 0 0

June 1, 2007

July 6, 2007

1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the notarial deed No. 686 of 2004, No. 686 of 2004.

2. Suspension of the compulsory execution by notarial deeds as referred to in paragraph (1) until this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-2, 9. 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings is collected from the plaintiff's personal examination result.

A. The defendant operated an entertainment drinking house under the trade name of "00" around April 2004, and operated a business by allowing female employees who are entertainment visitors to drink with customers by allowing them to drink with customers. In addition, when customers want to enjoy entertainment, the defendant operated a business by arranging them to drink with female employees who are entertainment visitors.

B. On April 17, 2004, the Plaintiff received the advance payment of KRW 7,500,000 (hereinafter “the advance payment”) from the Defendant on condition that the Plaintiff work as an entertainment receptionist at the said host point, and a notary public set up a notarial deed to the effect that the Plaintiff will recognize compulsory execution when the Plaintiff borrowed the advance payment from the Defendant on August 17, 2005 (hereinafter “the instant notarial deed”). The Plaintiff worked as an entertainment receptionist from the said host point from April 18, 2004 to the next day, and only worked as an entertainment receptionist.

2. Determination

A. Article 4 Subparag. 3 through 5 of the former Prevention of Prostitution, etc. Act (amended by Article 2 of the Addenda of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc., enacted by Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004; hereinafter the same) prohibits “inciting, inducing, mediating, arranging, or forcing a person to do so, or inducing, inducing, arranging, or compelling the other party to do so, providing a place for the act of prostitution or demanding, receiving, or promising to receive money, goods, or other property benefits from the customer of the act of prostitution.” Article 20 of the same Act provides that “a claim held by a person who commits an act under any of subparagraphs 3 through 5 of Article 4 of the same Act for profit-making purpose or a person who cooperates with it against a person who has a business-related prostitution shall be null and void regardless of the form of the contract.” Thus, even if a person who assists in the act of prostitution, etc. provides the person with a business-related relationship with the act of prostitution to the person under return of the contract.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant operated a business by arranging the act of prostitution of female employees who are entertainment workers of the above main office operated by the defendant, and the plaintiff decided to work as entertainment reception workers who engage in the act of prostitution at the above main office operated by the defendant between the defendant and the defendant. Thus, the defendant's business-related prostitution constitutes a person who conducts entertainment, and even if the defendant agreed to the effect that the above prepaid payment constitutes money and goods received in relation to the above prostitution and the defendant borrowed the above prepaid payment from the plaintiff, the above agreement is null and void.

C. Therefore, since the defendant's claim against the plaintiff on the basis of the notarial deed of this case is null and void, compulsory execution of this case with the title of execution cannot be permitted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

Judges Lee Jae-deok