1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff lent 25 million won to the defendant B on April 23, 2003 without setting the due date and interest. The defendant C and D are acknowledged to have jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of the loan of this case against the plaintiff by the defendant B. Meanwhile, the lender shall notify the borrower of the repayment within a reasonable period of time (Article 603 (2) of the Civil Act), and the borrower shall be liable for delay from the time when a reasonable period of time expires. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff notified the return of the loan of this case to the defendant B prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the defendants shall be liable for delay (the defendant B, July 11, 2013, and the defendant C, from June 13, 2013 to June 13, 2013).

2. The Defendants’ assertion as to the Defendants: (a) the instant loan was paid as advance payment on condition that Defendant B 2 would engage in the act of prostitution in Incheon’s entertainment business; and (b) the instant loan claims are claims against a person who solicits, induce, mediate, or compels to engage in an act of prostitution for profit-making purposes, and thus, the instant loan claims are invalid pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act or Article 20 of the former Act on the Prevention of Prostitution, etc. (amended by Act No. 7196 of March 22, 2004, Article 20 of the Addenda of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.) and the delivery of the instant loan constitutes illegal consideration, and thus the Plaintiff cannot seek the return of the instant loan; and (c) the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Plaintiff, a non-registered credit service provider,