1. A deed prepared by the Defendant’s notary public C office against the Plaintiff is based on the No. 482 of 2017.

1. Fact-finding;

A. On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff borrowed 15 million won as interest free of charge from the Defendant; for three months from September 14, 2017 to November 14, 2017, one million won shall be paid on the 14th day of each month; for six months from December 14, 2017 to May 14, 2018, two million won shall be paid in installments on the 14th day of each month; for non-performance of the compulsory execution, the notarial deed as referred to in paragraph (1) of the text of the same paragraph (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”) recognizing that there is no objection even if it is immediately subject to compulsory execution.

B. On September 13, 2017, in the case of violation of the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, etc. Act, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction of two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of six months, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Plaintiff, at the rest of the Defendant’s operation (hereinafter “instant business”), engaged in sexual traffic and worked for the period from August 9, 2017 to September 2017.

【Partial grounds for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① The instant loan was offered to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, the owner of sexual traffic, for the purpose of continuously engaging in sexual traffic. As such, a monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant related to the said debt 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 Sexual Traffic, Etc., and the said prepaid payment constitutes illegal consideration as stipulated in Article 746 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should be rejected.

② Furthermore, after the Plaintiff’s establishment of the instant business, the Defendant sent a number of mobile phone letters to the Plaintiff and urged the Plaintiff to repay the borrowed money.