1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff respectively lent C, KRW 10 million on May 16, 2012, KRW 3 million on July 6, 2012, and KRW 2 million on September 3, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (a certificate of rent, Eul borrowed a sum of KRW 15 million from the plaintiff on September 3, 2012, and the defendant's name at the time of the plaintiff's spouse at the time is stated and the defendant's seal affixed to the defendant's name is affixed) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant borrowed the above sum of KRW 15 million with C, and even if C solely borrowed the above amount, C, which is the defendant's spouse, borrowed the above money with respect to daily home affairs. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above KRW 15 million.

First, as to whether the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s name on the loan certificate of this case cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence that the Defendant’s signature or affixed a seal on the loan certificate of this case was affixed with the Defendant’s seal. According to the above evidence No. 2 (including the serial number), the fact that the KRW 10 million on May 16, 201 and KRW 3 million on July 6, 2012 were transferred to the Defendant’s account may be recognized, but the above fact of recognition alone cannot be deemed to have borrowed the above money, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Next, there is no evidence to deem that C borrowed money was consumed in the daily home affairs, and there is no other evidence to deem that C borrowed money was consumed in the daily home affairs.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is legitimate.