1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial are married.

B. The Plaintiff, on December 8, 2003, lent C a total of KRW 70 million on April 1, 2004 and KRW 70 million on a yearly interest rate of KRW 15%.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s obligation to repay under a loan for consumption under a loan agreement asserts that the Defendant jointly borrowed the above KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff with C, and even if not, the Defendant promised to repay the above KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 70 million and its delay damages.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone cannot be recognized as above, and the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

B. Next, the Plaintiff’s borrowing of the above KRW 70 million from the Plaintiff constitutes a juristic act regarding the daily home affairs of the Defendant couple and thus, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable for the above KRW 70 million.

A juristic act related to a daily home referred to in Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a juristic act which is ordinarily required for a couple’s living living. The contents and scope of a juristic act are determined by the community’s living structure, degree and the community’s living place. In determining whether a specific juristic act at issue concerns a couple’s daily home affairs, it shall be determined according to the ordinary social norms by comprehensively taking into account the objective circumstances, such as the kind and nature of the juristic act, and the subjective intent and purpose of a person in charge of family affairs, and actual living conditions, such as the couple’s social status

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877, Mar. 9, 199). In light of the above legal principles, this case is relevant.