1. The principal amounting to KRW 9,00,000 based on the loan certificate issued on December 22, 2008 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is a business owner running an entertainment tavern's brokerage and dispatched business (hereinafter "the instant report room") in the form of so-called "C" in the name of "C," and the plaintiff is an employee working at the instant report room.

B. The Plaintiff was employed in Busan D’s news report, and was employed by Nonparty E, who was aware of other business places around December 2008, to repay the prepaid amount of the above news report. The Plaintiff was introduced to the Defendant.

C. On December 22, 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of loan for consumption (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) with a loan amounting to KRW 9,00,000,000 and interest rate of KRW 48.95% (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) to the Defendant on January 22, 2009, and was remitted from the Defendant at KRW 8,50,000 after deducting interest rate of KRW 450,000 from the amount of KRW 9,000 on December 24, 2008.

From December 22, 2008 to December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff worked for three days at the instant news report room, and on December 24, 2008, the Plaintiff was engaged in sexual traffic by having a customer contact at the entertainment establishments that the Defendant was going to go to the entertainment establishments and operated sexual traffic by moving to the nearby motherel.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness E's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to a claim for the confirmation of existence of an obligation and a counterclaim for a loan

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is a prepaid payment provided for commercial sex acts, which violates the Act on the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic, etc. or constitutes illegal consideration as it constitutes a juristic act contrary to social order under Article 103 of the Civil Act, and thus, the defendant cannot seek the return thereof.

The defendant was unaware of whether or not the plaintiff was sexual traffic, and was forced, mediated, or obtained profits therefrom. Rather, the plaintiff was prosecuted for fraud due to the suspicion that he obtained the above loan, and thus the above loan is returned.