1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendant B is dismissed.

(b).

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the husband of the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Defendant C is the father of the deceased.

B. Around March 25, 2014, the Plaintiff wired KRW 5,000,000 to the F bank passbook of the Deceased. The Deceased wired KRW 2,200,000 on the same day to the Defendant B, and the Deceased wired KRW 2,80,000 on the following day, and KRW 6,000,000 on the aggregate.

C. Around March 27, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 10,000,000 to the Deceased, and the Deceased remitted KRW 7,000,000 to the Defendant C following the date.

The Deceased operated the beauty room before the death.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Results of the order to submit financial transaction information to F Co., Ltd. by the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The primary assertion is that Defendant B is liable to pay the said money and its delay damages to the Plaintiff, since Defendant B lent KRW 6,000,000 to the Deceased, who had the right to live in the daily life of Defendant B.

B. Through the conjunctive Deceased, Defendant B directly borrowed KRW 6,00,000 from the Plaintiff, and Defendant C directly borrowed KRW 7,000,000,000, respectively. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay KRW 6,000,000, and Defendant C is obligated to pay the respective loans and damages for delay.

3. Determination

A. The right of representation concerning the daily home affairs of the married couple, which is judged as to the primary argument, is when the married couple usually takes place as a community (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1621, Mar. 26, 1985). If the act of borrowing money is for the purpose of raising funds necessary for the common life of the married couple, taking into account the amount, purpose of borrowing money, actual expenditure purpose, and other circumstances, the act of borrowing money belongs to the ordinary family affairs.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da46877 delivered on March 9, 199). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the deceased was ordinarily engaged in a family life and that the deceased borrowed the above money for the purpose of raising funds necessary for common life of both spouses and wife. This is different.