1. The plaintiff's appeal and the additional selective claims by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Basic Facts

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, it is recognized that the defendant's agent's certificate of loan Nos. 30 million won was prepared on October 27, 2016, stating that he/she will pay up to November 31, 2016 in the name of the defendant's agent C, and that the plaintiff remitted 30 million won to the defendant's account under the defendant's name on October 27, 2016.

The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the cause of the claim (1) The Defendant granted C the right of representation as to the loan of KRW 30 million to his spouse, which is the spouse, and thus, bears the obligation to return the loan as the principal.

In addition, C has opened an account under the name of the Defendant with the consent of the Defendant and used not only the financial transactions required for his daily life but also the financing of the business for which the cost of his daily living has been imposed. As such, C, who has the right of common use under Article 827(1) of the Civil Act, on behalf of the Defendant, bears the obligation to return the above borrowed money as the Defendant himself.

② Since the above act of borrowing money by C constitutes “legal act related to daily work and death” under Article 832 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C for the return of the above borrowed money.

③ The Defendant consented to the opening of an account under the name of the Defendant to C is a guarantee for C’s financial transaction act.

Judgment

① As to the fact that the Defendant granted the right of representation to the husband C as to the preparation of the evidence No. 1 (a certificate for rent), the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) In light of the facts acknowledged in the foregoing paragraph, it is difficult to view the above borrowing act as a juristic act concerning daily home affairs, and even if there exists a common right of representation among the husband, it is difficult to deem that the husband granted the right of representation to the obligee regarding the debt-sharing agreement with the husband, in general, to bear the obligation of the husband’s business.

(2) The evidence of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of this paragraph shall apply.