Defendant B’s KRW 40,00,000 and its amount are 5% per annum from July 4, 2019 to December 11, 2019.

1. As to the judgment on the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to Defendant B on July 3, 2019 and set the due date for repayment two months after the end of the two-month period. However, Defendant B, without intent or ability to repay, obtained the above amount from the Plaintiff, Defendant B is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 40 million and its payment damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from July 4, 2019 to the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint in this case, and from the next day to the day of full payment, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., the Defendant B is deemed to have led to confession under Article 150 of the

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B. The defendant B used the above money borrowed from the plaintiff as the defendant's life as well as the purchase of a house jointly residing with the defendant's husband and wife's living and the purchase of a house and the test cost. Thus, the defendant C is jointly and severally liable pursuant to Articles 827 and 832 of the Civil Code, and even if not, it is not so, the defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the tort of the above fraud. Thus, the defendant C is jointly and severally liable for the tort of the above fraud.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Defendant B merely provided that the Plaintiff was in need of supply at the time of borrowing, but does not seem to have expressed a specific purpose of borrowing. Although the above KRW 3,220,00 among the above KRW 40 million was transferred to Defendant C on the following day, most of the amounts were transferred to others, such as D and E, and it is difficult to conclude that the above borrowed amount was actually necessary for the joint life of the Defendants’ husband and wife.

On the other hand, evidence that Defendant B’s above lending act belongs to a legal act related to daily household affairs, or Defendant C’s above lending of money.