1. Loans extended by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) based on a monetary loan agreement concluded on October 6, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. From October 6, 2013 to November 2, 2011 of the same year, the Plaintiff engaged in sexual traffic while working as a entertainment drinking house with the trade entertainment tavern of “C” in Busan Shipping Daegu.

B. The Defendant, who works as the head of the foregoing entertainment drinking house’s business, lent to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 8 million, including KRW 3 million on October 6, 2013, KRW 700,000 on August 7, 2013, and KRW 4,300,000 on October 4, 19 of the same year (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, witness D's partial testimony, the result of the plaintiff's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The instant monetary loan agreement is null and void in violation of Article 103 of the Civil Act and Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Commercial Sex Acts, Etc. under a contract concluded by the Defendant to provide a prepaid payment to the Plaintiff for the purpose of soliciting and arranging sexual traffic, etc., and thus, the instant prepaid payment does not exist, and the Defendant asserted that the instant prepaid payment constitutes illegal consideration and thus, the Defendant cannot claim a return thereof against the Plaintiff and sought confirmation of the absence of the Defendant’

(2) In addition, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant committed a tort such as allowing an unspecified male to engage in sexual traffic with himself/herself, and that he/she suffered a considerable mental suffering, so the defendant has the obligation to pay 10 million won as consolation money for the mental suffering that he/she suffered.

B. (1) Determination (1) A claim that a person who has engaged in an act of arranging sexual traffic, etc., who has recruited a person who has engaged in an act of selling sex, or who has recruited a person who has engaged in an act of selling sex with regard to such act is null and void regardless of the form or title of a contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27488, 27495, Sept. 3, 2004).