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

A. On September 197, the Defendant purchased a motor vehicle (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) from an Abandoned Motor Vehicle Sales Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Abandoned Motor”), and the Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.: hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd.”) concluded a guarantee insurance contract that guarantees the Defendant’s obligation to pay the instant motor vehicle price for Abandoned Motor. (hereinafter “the instant guarantee insurance contract”).

B. Around the same time, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s indemnity liability for the Seoul Guarantee Insurance based on the instant guarantee insurance contract.

C. Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. paid 8,035,995 won as the instant automobile price to the Malaysia on August 1, 1998, in accordance with the instant guarantee insurance contract.

On May 4, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,670,660,00 to Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. totaling the automobile price and the damages for delay.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition under paragraph (1) of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the plaintiff as a joint and several surety of the defendant, paid KRW 20,670,660 to Seoul Guarantee Insurance, such as Paragraph (d) of Article 1, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 20,670,660 and damages for delay from May 4, 2006, which is the payment date.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The allegation that the Plaintiff is not the Defendant’s guarantor is the actual buyer of the instant automobile and the actual principal debtor of the instant guarantee insurance contract are the Plaintiff (or C corporation operated by the Plaintiff) and the Defendant merely lends the name only to the Plaintiff, and thus, the instant claim based on the premise that the Plaintiff guarantees the Defendant is without merit. 2) There is no evidence supporting the Defendant’s argument, and this allegation is without merit

B. The Plaintiff asserted one of the grounds for the claim for the extinction of prescription as set forth in 1’s D.