1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20 million to the Defendant on May 31, 2007 as the due date for payment on August 31, 2007. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 20 million and the delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant received the above KRW 20 million under the so-called "advance payment" under the pretext of working as an employee of an entertainment establishment at the time of the defendant's assertion, which constitutes a case contrary to good morals and social order, and thus is null and void. The plaintiff cannot claim the return of illegal consideration against the defendant.

B. Determination 1) 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 the act of arranging sexual traffic or a person who has employed a person who has engaged in the act of selling sex with regard to 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 traffic is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing and coercing sexual traffic is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting and coercing sexual traffic in employing a person who has sexual intercourse, are not allowed to be considered as illegal consideration (see Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da27488, 27495, Sept. 3, 2004; 2004; 27495, Sept. 3, 2004>