1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 5, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant’s husband C to grant a loan of KRW 50 million with the cost of installing the Formula 2 system in the E golf club located in Chungcheongnam-si (hereinafter “instant golf club”) up to March 4, 2014, and at 2% of monthly interest (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and deposited the said money with the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant on the same day.

B. On February 21, 2015, the Defendant entered into a contract with F to transfer the instant golf club at KRW 70 million. According to the said contract’s special agreement, F would deposit KRW 40 million out of the said transfer price into the Plaintiff’s account with the Plaintiff’s debt repayment.

According to the above special agreement, the Plaintiff received the above KRW 40 million from F on March 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, and the husband and wife of the instant golf club borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as the operating fund of the instant golf club.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 13,83,000,000, which was paid by F, out of the total amount of principal and interest of the loan up to March 2, 2015 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 50,000,000, KRW 3,833,000) and the agreed interest thereon.

Even if the Defendant is not a co-user, the instant loan for consumption is an act based on the common right of representation between husband and wife or an act done with a third party with respect to daily home affairs, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above money.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the Defendant is a joint borrower or not, as seen earlier, that the loan contract of this case was concluded between the Plaintiff and C. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendant jointly borrowed money from the Plaintiff with the Defendant solely based on the fact that the loan was deposited into the account in the name of the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(b).