Anti-social juristic act shall not be limited to a criminal act.

Juristic acts contrary to the social order in this article are not necessarily limited to criminal acts which conflict with criminal laws and regulations.

Article 103 of the Civil Act

Maternation

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na2139, 2140 decided June 30, 1972, Seoul High Court Decision 71Na2139, 2140 decided June 30, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) Judgment on the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 and the grounds of supplementary appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

In light of the records, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for this case on the ground that the non-party 15,000,000 won was transferred to the defendant and the claim for this case was made based on the credit for this loan. The court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for this case on the ground that the non-party 1 had no supporting evidence as to the existence of the credit for this case was rejected on the ground that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for this case on the ground that there was no evidence to prove the existence of the credit for this case since the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for this case based on the evidence of the agreement that the non-party 1 and 4 had the credit for this case against the defendant, which was a public official, made a solicitation to the above new Gun and received under the agreement to pay it as the fee if the solicitation was made, it is clear by the evidence of the present case, and it was not issued under the contract for monetary loan loan such as the theory, and it is not justified in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence as pointed out.

(2) Determination on the second ground of appeal as follows:

According to the facts duly established by the court below, there are no claims and obligations such as the theory of lawsuit between the non-party and the defendant, but unless it is evident that Gap check was received as consideration for the solicitation, it cannot be said that there was a lack of merit on the ground that the non-party did not make a sufficient decision on the facts constituting the constituent elements of the crime regarding the crime of bribery at the time of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, and the juristic act of so-called anti-social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act is not limited to the act of violation of the criminal law. Therefore, in the reasoning of the judgment below, the agreement on the payment of the honorarium between the non-party and the defendant on the payment of this case is invalid against the public order and good morals, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law in the incomplete deliberation or the lack of reason as pointed out in the ruling.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)