1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff offered a loan of KRW 12,000,000 to the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the said KRW 12,00,000 and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant did not borrow KRW 12,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant, this constitutes illegal consideration, which is either premised on the Defendant’s commercial sex acts or economic benefits related thereto, and thus constitutes illegal consideration, the Plaintiff cannot seek the return of the said money against the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a claim against a person who has engaged in an act of arranging sexual traffic or a person who has employed a person who has engaged in an act of selling sex in connection with the act of arranging sexual traffic shall be null and void regardless of the form or title of the contract. The illegal consideration as stipulated under Article 746 of the Civil Act refers to the case where the act of causing sexual intercourse and the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting, coercion, or coercion of sexual traffic, while employing a person who has sexual intercourse, cannot be claimed as illegal consideration, and furthermore, if the economic benefits that have been paid or related to sexual traffic as well as the economic benefits that have been provided as direct consideration for sexual traffic, they cannot be claimed as illegal consideration.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da65174 Decided June 14, 2013). B.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 3, the defendant is the plaintiff on September 7, 2017, and 12,000,000 won from the plaintiff.