1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 588, August 18, 2016, No. 2016, dated August 18, 2016.

1. The Plaintiff was a female employee who works in the “C” as an entertainment drinking club, and the Defendant served as a manager in a position as a regular manager at the above main office.

On August 18, 2016, the Plaintiff received KRW 25 million from the actual business owner D, and drafted a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) as indicated in the Disposition No. 1 as well as the Defendant on August 18, 2016.

On November 24, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory execution of the instant corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff based on the Notarial Deed No. 2016No. 1117 of this Court.

On December 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, claiming that the monetary loan contract on the instant Notarial Deed is invalid as it concerns money and valuables paid in return for sexual traffic, and filed an application for the suspension of the said compulsory execution with this court No. 2016Kadan1019, and the said court rendered a decision that the said compulsory execution will be suspended until the pronouncement of the instant judgment was rendered on December 20, 2016.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not force the plaintiff to engage in sexual traffic, and that the plaintiff was chosen by itself, and that the plaintiff did not receive the advance payment and did not work.

On February 23, 2018, the Defendant was convicted of criminal facts with the purport that “A female employees, including the Plaintiff, arranged to engage in sexual traffic with D along with D, from July 4, 2016 to October 15, 2016,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and substantial facts in this court

2. Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a claim that a person who has employed, recruited, or arranged another person who has engaged in an act of arranging sexual traffic or who has engaged in an act of selling sex shall be null and void regardless of the form or name of the contract, and that a claim for return of unjust enrichment shall be prohibited.