1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The Plaintiff’s contract for a loan for consumption with the Defendant on June 7, 2014.

1. The fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,500,000 from the Defendant on June 7, 2014 on a yearly interest rate of 20%, the due date of repayment as of July 7, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant advance payment”), and the fact that E guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation at the time of the instant advance payment does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized in accordance with the purport of the evidence No. 3, the evidence No. 1, and the entire pleadings and arguments, respectively.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s prepaid money of this case was provided by the Defendant, the owner of sexual traffic, to the Plaintiff for the purpose of engaging in sexual traffic, and thereafter, the Plaintiff was forced to actually engage in sexual traffic in the “Ddab” operated by the Defendant husband C (hereinafter “Ddab”).

Therefore, the contract for a loan for consumption on June 7, 2014 between the original Defendant related to the instant prepaid 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. The said prepaid payment constitutes illegal consideration under Article 746 of the Civil Act. Thus, the Defendant cannot seek the return thereof against the Plaintiff.

Therefore, there is no obligation under the above loan contract for consumption to the defendant.

B. The Defendant did not lend money to the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff for illegal business, such as sexual traffic, and only lent money upon request of the Plaintiff to the Defendant.

Therefore, given that the instant advance payment does not constitute illegal consideration, the Plaintiff is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Article 10 of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic provides that a claim that 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 selling sex shall be null and void regardless of the form or title of the contract. Article 746 of the Civil Act provides that a claim for return of unjust enrichment shall be prohibited.