1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. As between December 19, 2006 and October 28, 201, the Defendant’s wife borrowed a total of KRW 625 million from the Plaintiff during the period from December 19, 2006 to October 28, 201, the fact that the Defendant’s wife borrowed a total of KRW 625 million from the Plaintiff does not conflict between the parties, or that the Defendant’s wife obtained a total of KRW 1,3, and 4 (including serial numbers) by considering the overall purport of the pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant also borrowed the above KRW 625 million from the plaintiff jointly with the plaintiff and agreed to jointly repay the above KRW 625 million. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above borrowed money and delay damages to the plaintiff. Even if the defendant's joint-use fact is not recognized, C borrowed money from the plaintiff's representative for the defendant's daily living as the defendant's wife because it is based on the ordinary temporary use right under Article 827 of the Civil Act for the plaintiff's daily living as the defendant's wife. Even if the act of borrowing money is not included in the scope of the ordinary temporary use right, C borrowed money from the defendant's account with the purpose of using it for the common interest of the plaintiff, as long as the plaintiff borrowed money by using the account under the defendant's name for the purpose of common interest of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to believe that C has the right to borrow money on behalf of the defendant, and therefore the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the above borrowed money and delay damages to the plaintiff

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion for common rent, there are evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 8 (including additional number), which correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, first of all, according to the images of health room, Gap evidence No. 11, 12, and Eul evidence No. 3 as to whether the authenticity of evidence No. 1 (a) has been made, it is recognized that the following stamp image of the defendant's name No. 1 was based on the defendant's seal, but the purport of the whole pleadings is as to whether the evidence No. 6-23, 26, 43, 44, and 53 as to whether the evidence No. 1 (a) has been made.