1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

(a) 3.10 to 4.6 pages of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be applied as follows:

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserts that the Plaintiff’s payment of the money to Defendant B constitutes illegal consideration and thus cannot be claimed as illegal consideration because it was used as a means of inducing, soliciting, and coercioning sexual traffic.

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 the act of arranging sexual traffic or a person who has employed a person who has engaged in the act of selling sex in connection with 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 the case where the act of causing sexual intercourse and the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order. Since the act of inducing and coercing it is contrary to good morals and other social order, money, valuables and other property gains, etc. provided as a means of inducing, soliciting and coercing sexual traffic while employing a person who has sexual intercourse constitutes illegal consideration and cannot be claimed for return thereof, and furthermore, if economic benefits are premised on or related to sexual traffic as well as economic benefits provided as direct consideration for sexual traffic, they cannot be claimed as illegal consideration.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da65174, Jun. 14, 2013). A’s evidence No. 1 and Defendant C are written.