beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to lend C several times from December 2, 2008 to December 9, 2013, KRW 27,000,000, and KRW 4,000,000 on January 22, 2014, respectively.
However, the above loan obligations are the ordinary household obligations to be used as operating funds of rice stores jointly operated by C and the defendant who is the husband thereof, school expenses of children, marriage funds, etc. Thus, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the total amount of KRW 31,00,000 and damages for delay pursuant to Articles 827 and 832 of the Civil Act.
2. Even if one of the husband and wife's monetary loans is determined, if it is used for the husband and wife's living expenses or financing necessary for the maintenance of the married and wife's community by taking into account the amount and purpose of the loan, actual expenditure purpose, and reflects the situation, it can be deemed that it belongs to the ordinary family affairs for which the joint and several liability of the husband and wife is established.
Comprehensively taking account of the various descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of the witness C, it is recognized that C, the Defendant’s wife, from the Plaintiff to December 9, 2013, borrowed KRW 27,000,000, and January 22, 2014, respectively, from the Plaintiff’s wife.
However, with respect to whether the above borrowed loan obligations (hereinafter “the borrowed loan obligations of this case”) constitute the daily household obligation, it is not sufficient to accept the above loan obligations only with the descriptions of the above evidence and evidence Nos. 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 5-8, Gap evidence No. 9-1 through 5, Gap No. 10, 11, and Gap evidence No. 12-1 through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them.
Therefore, without examining the plaintiff's claim against the defendant on the premise that the debt of this case is a common household loan obligation, it is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.