1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. On November 23, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000,00 to Nonparty C with interest rate of KRW 16.8% per annum (one hundred thousand per month) and due date until December 31, 2018. On the same day, C prepared and executed a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement with the same content to the Plaintiff.

B. C had operated D convenience points at the time of borrowing money from the Plaintiff. However, although the Defendant agreed to provide convenience stores as security for the said loan, C’s house security deposit and deposit money, and C’s restaurant deposit, which is expected to be operated later, the Defendant did not prepare a disposition document related to the provision of security thereafter.

C. The Defendant is the wife of C, and the Defendant, around November 2017, leased a store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “instant store”) with a deposit of KRW 50 million, paid a premium of KRW 65 million to the lessee before acquiring the goodwill, and operates a restaurant in the name of F restaurant at the instant store.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed C’s obligation to the Plaintiff.

However, even if it is not so, C borrowed money from the Plaintiff, as part of C’s premium in the F cafeteria opened by the Defendant, and the Defendant and C live with the income earned from the operation of the said cafeteria, and thus, C borrowed money from the Plaintiff is a juristic act related to daily household affairs as a loan for running a common life of the married couple.

Therefore, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay C's debt to the plaintiff.

B. (1) As to whether the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff, the recording of the health room and the evidence No. 3 alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(2) Next, C’s act of borrowing money from the Plaintiff is an ordinary family affairs company.