beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.27 2015가단3088

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. As to the claim on the daily home sales agency, the Plaintiff lent KRW 4,427,00 to C, who is the Defendant’s wife, from around 209 to August 5, 2013, and C promised to pay the above loan in installments to the Plaintiff on August 5, 2013, but repayment was made on August 4, 2014, and KRW 1 million on October 31 of the same year. C borrowed money from the Plaintiff for the purpose of using money for the marriage awareness expenses for his wife, expenses for repairing agricultural machinery necessary for his farm operated by the Defendant, and expenses for raising the lease deposit for her children, and thus, C was obligated to pay the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 4,127,00 and damages for delay in accordance with the daily home sales agency legal doctrine as the husband of C.

The term "legal act concerning daily home affairs" in Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a legal act that is ordinarily necessary for a couple to engage in community life. If the act of borrowing money is for the purpose of raising funds necessary for a couple's community life in consideration of the amount of money, loan purpose, actual expenditure purpose, and other circumstances, it shall be deemed that it belongs to a common home life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877, Mar. 9, 199). Although there is no dispute between the parties, the fact that C is the defendant's wife does not exist between the parties, it is insufficient to recognize that C borrowed money from the plaintiff for the purpose of using it for the purpose of raising the money for the purpose of raising the loan deposit for the children's community life, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

2. As to the assertion of expression representation, the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Plaintiff by borrowing money in the name of the Defendant in excess of his/her authority on the basis of his/her ordinary right of representation, such as preparing a loan certificate, etc. in the name of the Defendant. Since there are justifiable grounds to believe that C has such authority, the Defendant is liable for the expression representation as prescribed in