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

B jointly and severally guaranteed the above loans.

② On October 14, 2013, B completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the instant sales contract to the Defendant on June 25, 2015 regarding the instant apartment owned from around October 14, 2013.

The apartment of this case was the only real estate in the name of B after July 1, 1984 according to the real estate registration record which was inquired as B's resident registration number.

③ From July 8, 2015, C lost the benefit of time due to the default of the above loan obligation, C and B had the Plaintiff bear the balance of 18,568,961 won (the balance of the loan as of the date of the instant sales contract) and the obligation for delay damages.

④ On September 16, 2015, the Plaintiff provisionally seized C’s Grandton (D) vehicle. On November 27, 2015, the Plaintiff recovered KRW 16,179,373 from the sales price of the said vehicle.

Since then, the above loans have been partially repaid several times, and the balance of loans 2,554,877 won and damages for delay remain as of the date of closing argument in the trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, and fact-finding with the Court Administration (Electronic Information Management Office) of this Court, the issue of whether a joint guarantor had intent to harm the joint guarantor at the time of selling real estate should be determined by the fact that the joint guarantor knew that his/her property status is insufficient to secure the joint and several surety obligation against the creditor.

Although the joint and several sureties should have known that the financial status of the principal debtor is insufficient to secure his/her obligation, he/she is not able to recognize his/her intention.

the debtor is the sole property of his own.