beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 of the basic facts, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff loaned the defendant's wife C a sum of KRW 50,000,000 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") with the interest rate of KRW 200,000 per month on July 14, 2004; December 31, 2004; January 9, 2005; August 16, 2005; October 24, 2005; and
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion C borrowed 30,000,000 won out of the loan 50,000,000 won from the Defendant’s operating expenses, and 20,000,000 won from the Plaintiff to use them for living expenses, etc. In fact, the Defendant, who is the husband, is also obligated to return the loan of this case jointly and severally with C pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act, since it used the above money for maintaining the marital community for the Defendant’s operation expenses and living expenses.
3. Determination: A juristic act related to a common home referred to in Article 832 of the Civil Act refers to a juristic act which is ordinarily necessary for a couple to lead a common life. The contents and scope thereof shall be determined by the community’s living structure, degree and social norms, which are the place of the married couple’s living. In determining whether a specific juristic act at issue concerns the common home life of the married couple, it shall be determined according to social norms by comprehensively taking into account both objective circumstances such as the kind and nature of the juristic act, and the subjective intent and purpose of the family manager, the social status, occupation, property, and revenue capacity of the married couple, together with objective circumstances such as the kind and nature of the juristic act, etc.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877 delivered on March 9, 199, etc.). With respect to the instant case, each statement of health care unit and evidence Nos. 1 through 3 is sufficient to support the Defendant and C’s community life as alleged by the Plaintiff.