1. On May 2013, the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendants under a monetary loan agreement does not exist.

Facts of recognition

On May 2013, the Plaintiff was engaged in sexual traffic, etc. at a commercial entertainment business establishment located in Daegu, but at the time, the Plaintiff was responsible for the prepaid debt to the operator of the commercial entertainment business.

around that time, Defendant B suggested to the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff shall loan KRW 17 million in advance, and the sexual traffic businesses operated by Defendant C and D (trade name: E; hereinafter “the instant business”).”

Accordingly, the Plaintiff consented to the said demand on the ground that the said loan was to repay the existing debt, and the Plaintiff was working at the instant establishment from May 14, 2013 to July 22, 2013.

At that time, Defendant B paid KRW 16.5 million out of the total amount of KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s prepaid debt repayment, to the commercial sex acts establishments located in Daegu, and paid the remainder KRW 500,000 to the Plaintiff.

On May 21, 2014, the Suwon District Court rendered a judgment convicting Defendant C and D of a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic on the grounds that Defendant C and D arranged sexual traffic by using the Plaintiff, etc. on the grounds that Defendant B introduced and arranged the occupation of selling sex to the Plaintiff. The judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the above fact-finding facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendants lent KRW 17 million to the defendant around May 2013. This constitutes a lending of money to the defendant around May 2013. Thus, since the defendant C and D knowingly provided funds to the plaintiff who is a person who sells sex, the above lending shall be null and void pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Act on the Punishment of Acts, etc. of Arranging Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking confirmation of the absence of the above 17 million won against the Defendants is with merit.