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. According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 20,000,00 to C, who is the husband of the Defendant, on December 21, 2011, as of May 31, 2012.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C refers to a seizure of an apartment complex under C and the Defendant’s joint name due to the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and it is necessary to pay money to the Plaintiff in order to prevent the seizure, and borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

The amount of KRW 20,00,000 borrowed from the Plaintiff was actually used as interest, childcare, living expenses, etc. on loan obligations.

Therefore, the defendant is liable for the above borrowed money as C's spouse for the day-to-day right of attorney.

B. The term “ordinary family-related juristic act” under Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a juristic act which is ordinarily necessary for a couple’s community life. Thus, in determining whether a specific juristic act in question concerns the common home life of the couple, it shall be determined in accordance with social norms by comprehensively taking into account the subjective intent and purpose of a family manager, the social status, occupation, property, and revenue capacity of the couple, together with objective circumstances such as the kind and nature of the juristic act, and the actual living conditions of the couple, such as the couple’s social status, occupation, and revenue capacity. If the act of borrowing money is for the purpose of raising funds necessary for a couple’s community life, taking into account the amount of money, borrowing purpose, actual expenditure purpose, and other circumstances, it shall be deemed that it belongs to a family-related company (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da4

The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that C borrowed KRW 20,000,000 from the Plaintiff for daily home affairs with the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is with this conclusion.