1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The plaintiff's ground of claim

A. On May 18, 201, the Defendant and B entered into a sales contract with D to purchase the instant real estate in marriage and borrowed KRW 53,000,000 from the Plaintiff on September 30, 201, without setting interest thereon, on June 1, 2011, the Defendant and B borrowed the amount of KRW 53,00,000 from the Plaintiff on September 30, 201, and paid the said KRW 53,00,000 to D as the purchase price of the instant real estate. After completing the registration of ownership transfer with the Defendant and B, they jointly leased the instant real estate.

As above, the defendant jointly borrowed the above 53,00,000 won from the plaintiff and used the above 53,00,000 won as the purchase fund for the real estate of this case to run a leasing business. Since the above borrowing act by the defendant and Eul constitutes a case where the defendant and all of them bear the obligation due to an act of commercial activity, the defendant and B are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff the above 53,00,000 won pursuant to Article 57 (1) of

B. Preliminary assertion: (a) although B independently borrowed the above KRW 53,00,000 from the Plaintiff, B borrowed the above KRW 53,000 from the Plaintiff to use as a real estate purchase fund necessary for community life with the Defendant; (b) such borrowing act constitutes a common house; and (c) the Defendant, who was the spouse of B, is jointly and severally liable with B pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act to repay the above KRW 53,00,000.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. There is no dispute between the parties as to the primary argument that B borrowed the above KRW 53,00,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan”). However, the Defendant’s entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone are as follows.