1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought a loan from the Defendant and C as a co-defendant. The first instance court partially accepted the claim against C and dismissed the claim against the Defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff appealed only against the defendant, and the scope of the trial of the party shall be limited to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since C is the husband of the defendant's claim for the performance of daily family affairs and C borrowed money for common life of the married couple, C's monetary borrowing constitutes "legal act related to daily family affairs" under Article 832 of the Civil Act, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay C and the plaintiff the money claimed.

B. The Defendant filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment with the money deposited by the Plaintiff in its own account, which constitutes unjust enrichment by obtaining benefits without any legal ground.

3. Determination

A. 1) On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff’s deposit account (hereinafter “instant account”) is the Defendant’s bank account upon the Plaintiff’s request for loans from C, which was employed by the Plaintiff.

) 20,000,000 Won (hereinafter “instant loan”)

2) C is the spouse of the defendant.

3) Of the instant loans, KRW 2 million was withdrawn in cash, KRW 16 million was used for stock investment, and the remainder appears to have been used for the living expenses, etc. of the Defendant and C. [based on recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 2 and 3 statements (including serial numbers), including the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. It is insufficient to recognize that C borrowed money from the Plaintiff in order to raise funds necessary for the common life of married couple with the Defendant solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff to determine whether to claim for the performance of ordinary family affairs obligations, and there is no other evidence to

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion about this part of claim is without merit.

C. According to the above facts of recognition of the claim for return of unjust enrichment, the Plaintiff.