1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant had worked as the office at the seat of the F Manpower Office located in Ulsan-gun E in North Korea.

B. Around February 2014, the Plaintiffs were working in “G” located in the same page, and Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B were employed in “H” and “I” as the Defendant’s introduction.

C. Around February 27, 2014, the Defendant drafted a notarial deed of debt repayment agreement, stating as follows: (a) around February 27, 2014, the Plaintiffs and (b) around 309, the Diplomatic Office Deed No. 3014, “A, the Plaintiff, the debtor, the Plaintiff A, the joint and several surety, the loan amount of KRW 10,000,000,000, which is the due date, and KRW 2.5% on March 20, 2014; and (b) the D Office Deed No. 310, the D Office Deed No. 2014, which is the Plaintiff A, the debtor B, the joint and several surety, the due date of payment of KRW 11,50,00,000, and February 5, 2014.”

(hereinafter “each notarial deed of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. The defendant asserted that the plaintiffs introduced or arranged multilateral measures to allow the plaintiffs to engage in sexual traffic, and in the process, the plaintiffs received money equivalent to the advance payment from the defendant and prepared each of the notarial deeds in this case.

Therefore, the said money is paid in relation to sexual traffic, and constitutes illegal consideration, and thus, there is no obligation under each of the instant notarial deeds against the Defendant by the Plaintiffs.

B. Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that claims 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 with regard to such act shall be null and void regardless of the form or name of the contract. The illegal consideration as stipulated under Article 746 of the Civil Act for the reason that the claim for return of unjust enrichment is prohibited is good morals and others.