대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. From March 19, 2008 to June 4, 2012, C, in a de facto marital relationship with the Plaintiff’s assertion, borrowed a sum of KRW 19,600,000 from the Defendant’s account through the Defendant’s account, and used it for common living expenses with the Defendant differently from the purpose of the loan. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 19,60,000 used for common living expenses.
On the date of borrowing (units: 50,000,000 won) from the date of borrowing the loan (units: 5,00,000 won) from the date of borrowing, on March 19, 208, for the purpose of borrowing the loan, 50,000 rental deposit for the offices on January 4, 2012: < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22351, Aug. 17, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 17035, Jan. 9, 2012; Presidential Decree No. 17075, Apr. 2, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 17032, Oct. 5, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 17081, Aug. 17, 200; Presidential Decree No. 170881, Oct. 19, 200; Presidential Decree No. 17081, Jun. 30, 2004>
2. Determination
A. The main text of Article 832 of the Civil Act provides, “if one side performs a juristic act with respect to daily home affairs with a third party, the other side shall be jointly and severally liable for the obligation arising therefrom.” The legal act related to daily home affairs as referred to in Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a juristic act related to the ordinary business which is needed in the community of the married couple. The specific scope is not only realistic living conditions such as marital community's social status, property, and ability to import but also determined according to the custom of the community where the married couple's living place. However, in determining whether a specific juristic act is a juristic act related to daily home affairs, the specific scope shall be determined not only by the internal circumstance of the married couple's community where the juristic act was performed, or by the individual purpose of the juristic act, but also by considering
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da31229 delivered on November 28, 1997, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877 delivered on March 9, 199, etc.) B.
In this regard, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 submitted by the plaintiff and objection.