beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on July 16, 2014, set the due date for repayment of KRW 30 million to the Defendant on September 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant loan for consumption”) and lent the loan (hereinafter “instant loan for consumption”) to the Defendant on September 30, 2014, barring any special circumstance, is liable to pay the loan amount of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
2. The defendant's defense and judgment as to it
A. The Defendant asserted to the effect that: (a) from May 2014 to June 201 of the same year, the Defendant served as gambling 48 boxes in the gambling room where the term “C” was opened; (b) provided D with the liability of KRW 20 million; and (c) borrowed the Plaintiff at the female’s house making coffee in the same gambling place as the introduction of D on July 16, 2014, and paid KRW 20 million among them to D; and (d) the instant loan agreement is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order that borrowed money for the purpose of using money for gambling.
B. If the judgment party has lent money for the purpose of providing it for gambling funds, the lending contract is null and void because it is a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Code.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da2249 delivered on May 22, 1973). As to the above argument by the defendant, the plaintiff asserts that he/she was requested to lend money to a member of the E known to him/her, and that he/she was loaned money to the defendant with no knowledge of the circumstances of lending money from gambling.
However, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by collecting the respective descriptions and arguments of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant, from May 2014 to June 2014, through the 48 ambling site in the ambling place in the F Japanese-style 20 million won at the time when D was opened from May 2014, and the Defendant, as well as the Plaintiff and the Defendant, bears an additional obligation of gambling KRW 20 million to D, and ② The Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into the loan agreement of this case.