1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. At the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought each payment of KRW 10,000,00 for loans for the purchase of vehicles, KRW 6,000,00 for loans for the purchase of vehicles, KRW 14,00,000 for loans for the purchase of house, KRW 14,00,000 for the purchase of house, and KRW 20,000 for the term of loan for the purchase of loan.

The court of first instance rejected the claim for the payment of KRW 5,00,000 and the time limit money of KRW 20,000,000 among the loans under the pretext of house repair, and dismissed the claim for the payment of the vehicle purchase cost and the loan under the pretext of house lease.

As a result, only the plaintiff appealed for the part against the plaintiff, the part on the claim for the payment of the time limit shall be excluded from the judgment of this court.

2. The plaintiff is a parent of the defendant's prevention, and the facts of the birth of C and D do not conflict between the parties.

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On September 14, 2006, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) transferred KRW 10,000,000 to the account of E with the Defendant’s husband’s request for purchase of vehicle E. The Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant as above. Even if the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000 to E other than the Defendant for domestic affairs, the Plaintiff loaned money at the Defendant’s request, and thus, the Defendant had an intent to guarantee the Defendant’s loan obligation. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the loan obligation amount of KRW 10,00,000 and delay damages therefrom. 2) According to the Plaintiff’s statement under subparagraph 1-1 of the evidence A, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10,000 to E’s account on September 14, 206 is recognized.

However, even if the testimony of Gap's evidence Nos. 8 and 12, witness D of the first instance trial, and witness F of the party trial alone transferred 10,000,000 won to E's account, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the money to the non-E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the primary argument about this part of the plaintiff is without merit.

Furthermore, the existence of the intention of guarantee is the existence.