1. The plaintiff's appeal is all 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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the plaintiff added or emphasized the argument that the plaintiff added or emphasized with respect to the conjunctive claim, and thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff invested money that is not aware of the fact that Defendant D engaged in an illegal business in the instant game, such as money exchange business, and thus, it does not constitute illegal consideration. Even if Defendant D’s money received from the Plaintiff based on the instant contract for the same business as illegal consideration, Defendant D merely agreed to prepare the instant loan certificate and return it to the Plaintiff, separate from the foregoing illegal consideration.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the settlement agreement based on the loan certificate of this case (hereinafter “the settlement agreement of this case”) is invalid in violation of good morals and other social order.

B. In a case where the motive of the juristic act indicated or known to the other party is anti-social order, such juristic act is null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da38613, Feb. 9, 2001). In a case where a person who received performance after illegal consideration enters into an agreement on the return of the performance itself or substituted by the performance under a separate agreement from the act causing performance, the agreement itself is valid unless the return agreement itself goes against social order, unlike the case where the person who made the performance for illegal consideration claims the return of the unjust enrichment.

In this context, whether a return agreement itself is void or not shall comprehensively take into account all the factors to determine whether the illegal consideration was made in addition to its own purpose, such as the background leading up to the original illegal consideration, the degree of illegality of both parties, and the process of concluding a return agreement.