1. The defendant shall be jointly and severally with C to the plaintiff KRW 28,350,00 and the period from February 16, 2016 to May 17, 2017.

1. The Plaintiff operated D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “D”), and C served in D from April 2012 to January 2016.

[C] There is no dispute in connection with the Plaintiff’s assertion. There is no rebuttal on the Defendant’s assertion that C’s monthly salary was “3,200,000 won” (the first page of the preparatory brief dated September 6, 2016 submitted by the Plaintiff), and that C was working as “field warden at the Plaintiff’s construction site (the second page of the preparatory brief dated April 15, 2016 submitted by the Defendant).

In this case, the plaintiff received a request from C to lend money on the grounds of kindergarten expenses, living expenses, loan, etc., and thereafter accepted C to do so, and thereafter, transferred money to the passbook in the name of the defendant (one bank E conversion account number is referred to as "F," and this is consistent with the recipient's account number stated in Gap evidence 1-2 (transfer certificate); hereinafter referred to as "the passbook in this case"). The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, the wife of C, is jointly and severally liable to return the above borrowed money, since it constitutes "one-day household debt."

2. The following is one of the following: (a) the nature of money remitted by the Plaintiff to the passbook in the name of the Defendant based on the foregoing factual basis.

(1) Of the remittance amount of the Plaintiff for benefit, the Plaintiff’s disadvantage should be borne by the Plaintiff, who is the remitter, if the remittance was written only as above, even if the Plaintiff was not a money actually remitted under the pretext of benefit. The part belonging to the Plaintiff’s management area, which was September 25, 2012, KRW 2 million on October 26, 2012, and KRW 2 million on May 23, 2014, and KRW 3 million on May 23, 2014, respectively, is indicated as “payment clearly” (see each relevant column of Category A1-2). Thus, it is reasonable to view all of them as a monthly wage paid in consideration of the labor provided by Category (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200 million won in consideration of the remittance amount, even though the Plaintiff was not a money actually remitted under the pretext of benefit). This is because the Plaintiff’s portion belonging to the management area is excluded from the loan items asserted by the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's remittance amount, ⑤ December 2012.