1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against Defendant D and E and Defendant C’s appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be individually counted.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the date of closing argument in the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance judgment's second instance

2. Matters to be judged additionally by the second instance;

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the part of the daily home sales agency claim is that Defendant C borrowed KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff constitutes a juristic act related to the daily home affairs, and that the deceased B is jointly and severally liable to pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff with Defendant C, the spouse, and that Defendant D and E, the heir of the deceased B, jointly and severally with Defendant C, should pay to the Plaintiff KRW 85,714,285, which corresponds to each statutory share of the KRW 300 million (= KRW 30 million x statutory share of KRW 2/7) and damages for delay.

The term "legal act concerning daily affairs" under Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a legal act concerning the ordinary affairs required in the community of a married couple. The specific scope is not only the social status, property, revenue, and ability of the married couple, but also the custom of the community, which is the place of the living of the married couple. However, in determining whether the specific legal act is a legal act concerning daily affairs of the married couple, the specific scope shall be determined not only by the internal circumstance of the married couple community or the individual purpose of the act, but also by the objective type, character, etc. of the legal act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da77712, Feb. 12, 2009). The act of borrowing KRW 300 million from Defendant C’s community life is a couple’s community life with only the descriptions in subparagraphs 1, 4, and 5-1 through 7.