beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2017.04.26 2016가단7944

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 23,650,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from April 27, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

The Plaintiff lent the amount of KRW 9250,000,000,000 to the Defendant’s wife, who operates an Ecafeteria in Ansan-si, by means of remitting the amount of KRW 4.75 million on April 3, 2014, KRW 4.755 million on May 18, 2014, KRW 50,00 on July 31, 2014, KRW 47550,00 on August 28, 2014, KRW 90,00 on September 5, 2014, KRW 140,000,000 on November 6, 2014, KRW 2,965,00 in total to the Defendant’s account.

【In the absence of any dispute, the other party shall be jointly and severally liable for any obligation arising therefrom, when one of the parties has performed a legal act with a third party with respect to the daily home affairs of the entire purport of pleadings, as a result of each statement of evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5, response against an order to submit financial transactions in this court,

(Article 832 of the Civil Act). In this context, a juristic act related to daily home refers to a juristic act which is ordinarily necessary for a couple to live a community life, and if it is for the purpose of raising funds necessary for a couple's community life in consideration of the amount of money borrowed, purpose of borrowing, actual expenditure purpose, and other circumstances, it shall be deemed that it belongs to a common house.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877 delivered on March 9, 199, etc.). In light of the following circumstances, the defendant's wife borrowed money from the plaintiff for the purpose of restaurant operating expenses or living expenses, such as rent, management fee, fishery product cost, etc., and the loan was made for the same purpose. The loan was made by way of remitting money to the defendant's account for about seven months as well as the loan was made by means of money transfer to the defendant's account at least with the defendant's permission, in light of the purpose of the loan, it is determined that the act of borrowing money from the plaintiff constitutes a daily insurance, and therefore, the defendant's wife is regarded as the defendant's act of borrowing money from the plaintiff.