1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is ordered.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10.5 million to the Defendant C’s account.

After that, Defendant B paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff around November 2015.

B. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendants prepared a loan certificate stating that “the borrower borrowed KRW 5.5 million from the Plaintiff, and repaid KRW 2 million by January 31, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendants paid the full amount of the said money, and if not, the said money must be repaid in full.” (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) and the Defendant B, as the borrower, sealed each of the seals as the surety.

【Recognition of Fact-finding】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff lent KRW 10.5 million to the defendant C, and he was paid KRW 5 million among them, and the defendants agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 5.5 million to the plaintiff jointly and severally. 2) The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff transferred KRW 10.5 million to the defendant C was the amount of KRW 9.5 million paid in advance to the employee D who worked at the plaintiff's multiple entries, and the amount of KRW 1.5 million paid in advance to the defendant.

However, when the Plaintiff demanded D to engage in prostitutions through the business of 'Tampet', and D was locked, the Plaintiff sought the return of the said money to the Defendant.

Therefore, the said money paid by employees employed by the Plaintiff for the purpose of prostitution constitutes illegal consideration and cannot be claimed for the return thereof.

In addition, Defendant B did not borrow KRW 5,500,00 from the Plaintiff, and the loan certificate of this case was prepared due to coercion and return by the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant B has no effect on Defendant B.

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim 1, Defendant C borrowed KRW 10,50,000 from the Plaintiff and received KRW 5 million from Defendant B.