1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B on December 29, 2010, borrowed 30,000,000 won from the Plaintiff at the interest rate of 18.90% per annum and 25% per annum.

B. A loan unpaid as of January 11, 2016 to the Plaintiff in B reaches KRW 34,578,723 in total, including the balance of principal 20,817,894, interest 7,008,329, arrears 3,266,560, and other amount 3,485,940.

C. Meanwhile, at the time of receiving the above loan from the Plaintiff, B expressed the purpose of financing to the Plaintiff’s employee, that the loan was made for the children’s school expenses.

On October 13, 1988, the defendant married with B and divorced on March 21, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion B was used for the purpose of the household living fund, the loan agreement entered into with the Plaintiff is about the daily home affairs.

Since the defendant was the legal spouse of B at the time of the above loan, it is jointly and severally liable with B to repay the amount claimed by the plaintiff out of the above loan obligations.

B. In light of the judgment, according to Article 827(1) of the Civil Act, married couple have the right of representation for the daily home affairs. According to the main sentence of Article 832 of the Civil Act, when one of the married couple performs a legal act with a third party with respect to the daily home affairs, the other spouse is jointly and severally liable for the obligation arising therefrom.

However, a juristic act related to daily home refers to a juristic act related to the ordinary affairs necessary for the common life of the married couple. The mere fact that B, at the time of entering into a loan contract with the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the above loan was actually used for school expenses, and there is no evidence to prove that the above loan was made for raising funds necessary for the common life of the married couple.

The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.