1. Defendant C: (a) to the extent of the property inherited from the network E, KRW 18,570,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) to the extent of the property inherited from the network E.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) exceeded the amount of KRW 5 million on September 30, 2016, KRW 20 million on December 20, 2016, and KRW 65 million on February 28, 2017, E used the said money for living expenses and for the children’s business funds. As such, Defendant B, the husband of E, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above borrowed money amount of KRW 65 million and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff under the legal doctrine of expression and representation pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act or under Article 832 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said legal act is ordinarily necessary for common life of the husband and wife. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s act constitutes an objective legal act of common life of the husband and wife, namely, KRW 65 million on behalf of the husband and wife, ought to be considered to be justified in light of the objective nature and purpose of the Plaintiff’s act of common life (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da16361.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da95861 Decided April 23, 2009). According to each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-2 and Eul evidence 2-2, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as the fact that around February 28, 2017, the plaintiff received a loan certificate under the name of defendant Eul from defendant Eul and remitted KRW 40 million to the account in the name of defendant Eul.

However, the loan certificate in the above defendant B's name is identical to the loan certificate in the E's name because it is unclear who is prepared.