beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of subparagraph 1 of the judgment on the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 3,000,000 to C on August 12, 2003, and the Defendant can recognize the fact that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above obligation. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 and delay damages.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant’s argument that C borrowed money from the Plaintiff, or that the Defendant guaranteed C’s debt to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant’s debt from the domestic loan or the Defendant’s joint and several liability is recognized, this constitutes a claim arising from an illegal cause related to sexual traffic, and thus, is not liable for payment
B. 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 an act of arranging sexual traffic or a person who has employed a person who has engaged in an act of selling sex with respect 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 a case where the act of causing sexual traffic is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing sexual traffic and the act of inducing sexual intercourse is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as the means of inducing sexual traffic, etc. while employing a person who has engaged in sexual intercourse, cannot be claimed as illegal consideration, and furthermore, if the economic benefits that have been paid or related to sexual traffic are premised on the direct consideration of sexual traffic, as well as the economic benefits that have been paid for sexual traffic, they shall not be claimed as illegal consideration.
Supreme Court Decision 201No. 14 Decided June 14, 2013