logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.10.28 2014가단223879
양수금
Text

1. Defendant A’s interest rate of KRW 27,19,823 and KRW 23,643,430 among the Plaintiff shall be from June 1, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim that Defendant A received a loan of KRW 25 million from one Capital Co., Ltd. on August 3, 2011 is a legal act with respect to daily home affairs. As such, Defendant B, the spouse of Defendant A, is jointly and severally liable to repay the above loans.

B. The term "legal act concerning daily home affairs" under Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a legal act concerning ordinary affairs necessary in the community of a couple. The specific scope is not only the social status, occupation, property, and revenue capacity of a couple, but also the community customs, etc. of the community, which is the place of living of the couple. However, in determining whether the specific legal act is a legal act concerning daily home affairs, it should be determined not only by the internal circumstance of the community where the juristic act was performed, but also by the objective type, character, etc. of the juristic act, but also by fully considering the objective type, nature, etc. of the juristic act.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B is not accepted on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was not accepted on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B was insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant was due to ordinary household affairs included in the ordinary business affairs of the marital community, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is justified, and the claim against the defendant B is without merit.

arrow