1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. The fact that the plaintiff set the interest rate of 24% per annum to Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”) and lent a total of 63 million won as follows (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) may not be disputed between the parties or recognize the entire purport of the pleadings as a whole in each of the statements in subparagraphs A and 4.

Temporary order 1 The amount of KRW 15 million on October 31, 2016 shall be KRW 63 million on the aggregate of KRW 5 million on April 10, 2017, KRW 300,000,000,000 on January 16, 2016, KRW 4.8 million on January 18, 2017, KRW 5 million on February 10, 2017, KRW 5 million on March 3, 2017, KRW 60,000,000 on March 31, 2017, KRW 700,000 on April 10, 2017.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. (1) The conclusion of the Plaintiff’s assertion of joint and several liability is that the Defendant’s wife B borrowed money from the Plaintiff as above and concluded the instant lending agreement with the Plaintiff is about the husband’s daily home affairs. Therefore, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with B to pay the above loans and damages for delay.

(2) There is no evidence to acknowledge that the judgment B borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff and used it for the Plaintiff’s daily home affairs, and instead, considering the overall purport of the argument as to the evidence No. 12, it is only recognized that B borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff as the pretext of resolving the issue of real estate purchased in the auction procedure between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, ② the bid bond in the auction procedure, ③ the bid bond in the auction procedure, ③ the loan for the money to others.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is jointly and severally liable for the above loans, since he used the money borrowed from the plaintiff as to the daily home affairs of both spouses.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 10, it can be acknowledged that Eul had been operating a singing room on the Namyang-si F and the second floor owned by the defendant's father, from April 2013. However, the above facts of recognition are against the G Bank of the first instance court.