1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person who operated an entertainment drinking house(s) on the Southern-gu C and the 1st underground floor of Ulsan-gu.

B. On December 12, 2007, the Defendant was to work as an employee at the above entertainment tavern and borrowed 2 million won from the Plaintiff on March 12, 2008 and 36% per annum on interest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 2 million and interest or delay damages thereon, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The gist of the defendant's defense 1) The plaintiff lent 2 million won to the defendant under the pretext of advance payment for the purpose of inducing the defendant to engage in prostitution while working at a entertainment establishment. As such, the plaintiff's loan claims are null and void because it constitutes an illegal cause. 2) The plaintiff's loan of money under the pretext of advance payment to the defendant constitutes an act conducted by the plaintiff who is a merchant for business, and thus, the plaintiff's claim as a commercial bond is subject to the statute of limitations.

However, the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of five years from March 12, 2008, which was the due date for payment as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s loan claim expired.

B. Determination 1) Since soliciting, inducing, arranging, or compelling, or cooperating with, the act of prostitution for the purpose of determining the nullity defense is in violation of good morals and other social order, a claim held by a person who conducts such act against a person who has a business-related prostitution is null and void regardless of the form of a contract (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27488, 27495, Sept. 3, 2004). The fact that the Plaintiff operated an entertainment tavern at the time that the Plaintiff pays money to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is employed as an employee of the Defendant.