1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff transferred the Defendant’s husband and the co-defendant B’s co-defendant B’s account on September 2, 201, KRW 3 million on September 23, 201, KRW 2 million on October 27, 201, KRW 40 million on October 27, 201, and KRW 5 million on November 25, 201.

B. B wired the Defendant’s bank account (hereinafter “Defendant account”) KRW 100,000 on September 5, 201, KRW 1500,000 on September 23, 201, KRW 1500,000 on October 27, 201, and KRW 24.9 million on November 7, 201.

C. The Plaintiff was transferred from the account in the name of the Defendant to April 2, 201, both from October 22, 2011 to April 2, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 11, Eul evidence 5, fact-finding results on the National Credit Union Federation of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that, as the Plaintiff was to make a joint investment in aggregate business in collusion with B and the Defendant, received money as a means of investment, and used it as a living cost, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the above investment agreement and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable to return the remaining amount of investment

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above facts and the statement of Gap evidence No. 2 are sufficient to acknowledge that Eul and the defendant conspired to invest in the aggregate business with the purpose of using them as the actual cost of living, and thus, they received money from the plaintiff. Since there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without any further review.

B. Next, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that, as the plaintiff borrowed money from the plaintiff with respect to daily home affairs, the defendant, the spouse, is jointly and severally liable for the debt of the loan to the plaintiff.

Therefore, Article 827 (1) of the Civil Code provides that "the father shall have the right of representation for each other with respect to the daily home affairs," and Article 832 of the Civil Code provides that one side of the father shall be the daily home affairs.