The meaning of and criteria for determining “legal act concerning daily household affairs” as prescribed by Article 832 of the Civil Act;

[1] Article 832 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 832 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877 delivered on March 9, 1999 (Gong1994Sang, 637)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Lee, Attorneys Seo-ju et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na76682 Decided July 25, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 832 of the Civil Act provides that “a juristic act concerning daily home affairs” refers to a juristic act ordinarily required for common life of both spouses. Thus, whether a juristic act in question concerns daily home affairs shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account both the objective type and nature of the juristic act and the intent and purpose of the person who performed the juristic act, the actual living conditions of both spouses, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877 delivered on March 9, 199, etc.).

The lower court determined that the instant lease agreement constitutes a juristic act related to daily household affairs to prepare living expenses, etc. necessary for the maintenance of the Defendant’s community life, in full view of the following: (a) the Defendant and his wife (hereinafter “Defendant husband and wife”) leased the instant apartment building owned by the Nonparty to the Plaintiff in order to raise the living expenses, etc. necessary for the community life of the married couple without any income, other than rent for real estate owned by the Defendant; (b) the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement with the Nonparty upon delegation of the authority to conclude the lease agreement and receive the lease deposit; (c) the Defendant was transferred the lease deposit to the account in the name of the Defendant that the Defendant couple used for the management of living expenses; and (d) the Defendant’s husband and wife used the money mainly for the living expenses, etc.; and (e) the economic reason that the Defendant couple entered into the lease agreement; and (e) the details of the conclusion of the contract; and (e) the place of

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding legal acts regarding daily home affairs under Article 832 of the Civil Act, or by misapprehending the logical and empirical rules, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)