(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.16 2016나74811

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.16 2016나74811

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 may be admitted by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:

On June 3, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared a debt repayment contract to the effect that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 13,00,000 from the Defendant at interest rate of KRW 30% per annum, and on July 3, 2011, the maturity date of payment, respectively, and that a notary public entrusted the preparation of a notarial deed on the said debt repayment contract at the 3rd anniversary of the 2011, and that the said law firm did not perform a monetary obligation under the said debt repayment contract (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) to the effect that the said law firm was immediately subject to compulsory execution, and that the Defendant was issued an authentic copy of the notarial deed of this case by the said law firm.

B. On July 7, 2015, the Defendant received the order of seizure and collection as to the Plaintiff’s deposited claim under the Suwon District Court 2015TT13572, with the authentic copy of the instant notarial deed as the executive title.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff is affiliated with the so-called “report bank” operated by the Defendant, while engaging in the act of prostitution, received KRW 13,00,00 from the Defendant for the payment of KRW 13,00,00,00 from the Defendant, and commission the Defendant to prepare a repayment contract, and commission the preparation of a notarial deed. As above, the Defendant’s payment of the prepaid payment to the Plaintiff is a means of inducing sexual traffic, which is in violation of good morals and other social order, and thus, it cannot be claimed as illegal consideration, and therefore, the Defendant’s repayment of the prepaid payment to the Plaintiff is impermissible.

B. To engage in prostitution for the purpose of profit-making.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.06.22 2017가합205756

-수원지방법원 2016.12.01 2016나8852

-수원지방법원 2017.06.22 2016나15584

-수원지방법원 2016.10.26 2015가단126783

-서울남부지방법원 2016.08.23 2016가단207083