1. Defendant B’s 69,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 17, 2015 to July 8, 2017, and the next day.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff lent money to Defendant B as stated in the attached Form lending details.

B. While Defendant B and Defendant C were married, Defendant B and Defendant C had a house around March 15, 2016, and Defendant C filed a divorce lawsuit against Defendant B, and the divorce became final and conclusive on September 21, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a fund necessary for the sales store of sports supplies operated by himself (hereinafter “D store”) and Defendant C borrowed money from the Plaintiff. Defendant C provided an apartment building which is a residential life as collateral and offered the apartment to Defendant B to open a D store. Since Defendant B used the profits accrued from D store as well as the profits accrued from D store for both husband and wife’s common living, Defendant B’s borrowing of money from the Plaintiff is included in ordinary household life.

Therefore, Defendant C is jointly and severally obligated to pay the money borrowed by Defendant B from the Plaintiff.

B. According to Article 827(1) of the Civil Act, a couple has the right of representation for each other with respect to the daily home affairs, and Article 832 of the Civil Act provides for the so-called right of representation for the so-called daily home affairs. According to Article 832 of the Civil Act, when one side of a couple performs a legal act with a third party with respect to the daily home affairs, the other side is jointly and severally liable for the obligation arising therefrom. However,

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da16369 delivered on September 28, 1993, 93Da16369). In order to establish a D store, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant couple jointly operated D stores on the sole basis that Defendant B offered an apartment as security for a common living space of both spouses.

If so, D stores are viewed as businesses operated independently by Defendant B, and Defendant 2 as claimed by the Plaintiff.