1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff at a rate of KRW 10 million and 24% per annum from August 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.

1. The following facts as to the cause of the claim do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 6.

On June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff heard the statement that Defendant B lent the cost of living, set the amount of KRW 100 million per month to KRW 2 million interest, and remitted KRW 100 million to Defendant C’s bank account (D).

B. On July 5, 2014, the Defendants did not pay interest amounting to KRW 2 million after remitting the interest to the Plaintiff.

C. Defendant B and Defendant C are de facto marital relations.

According to the above facts of recognition, KRW 100 million remitted by the Plaintiff is deemed to have been borrowed by the Defendants with respect to their daily home affairs in order to lead a matrimonial life. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 10 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from August 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendants asserted as to the Defendants’ assertion that Defendant B was the borrower of Defendant B, and Defendant C was not the borrower, since Defendant B had lent and used the passbook of Defendant C.

According to Article 832 of the Civil Act, when one side of the married couple performs a juristic act with a third party with respect to daily home affairs, the other side is also liable for the obligation arising therefrom.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 4 and 6, in Defendant C’s passbook, the principal station, convenience store, various restaurants, department stores, bread house, golf course, film room, taxi room, etc., and in light of the fact that the Defendants remitted the amount of KRW 45 million to the owner E residing in the Defendants on June 7, 2014, it appears to have been paid as lease deposit or rent, etc., in light of the fact that the money remitted by the Plaintiff was consumed for the expenses of the Defendants’ living, it is apparent that the money remitted by Defendant B was consumed for the expenses of the Defendants’ living. Thus, Defendant B’s lending money is due to ordinary domestic affairs.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is without merit.

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