1. The lower court determined on January 18, 2007 that: (a) Nonparty 1, who was liable for the repayment of the lease deposit amount of KRW 550 million against the Plaintiff, jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of KRW 250 million against the Defendant of Nonparty 2, the husband on January 18, 2007; (b) Nonparty 1, at the time of the said joint and several surety, including the instant real property of KRW 665,155,650, and KRW 58,520,547, a small property of KRW 838,520,547, a small property of KRW 588,520,547, + KRW 250,000,000,000,000,000 for KRW 145,864,897,538,520,557,65,6565,675, etc. of the above joint and several surety agreement, was revoked.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The court below denied the validity of the withdrawal of a confession that the plaintiff made in relation to the market price of the real estate of this case due to mistake against the truth. In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the revocation of confession.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

Since the right to revoke a fraudulent act aims to preserve the joint collateral of the claim, the scope of revocation is limited to the extent necessary and sufficient to preserve the joint collateral. Accordingly, in a case where the debtor becomes in excess of his/her obligation only by means of a fraudulent act, the creditor is sufficient to revoke only the part which falls short of the joint collateral of the claim, as long as the fraudulent act is divided, within the limit of his/her claim amount, and the whole act cannot be revoked.

However, if it is possible to cancel all of the act without doing so, there is any reason as follows. In the case of this case, it is defective that Nonparty 1 has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Nonparty 2 within the limit of KRW 100 million. In this case, even if it is jointly and severally guaranteed, the active property of Nonparty 1 is still more than the passive property and it does not fall under the excess of the obligation, so the above joint and several guarantee does not constitute a fraudulent act, and the Plaintiff cannot entirely revoke the said joint and several guarantee act. However, if Nonparty 1 is jointly and severally guaranteed within the limit of KRW 110,000,00,000, it is beyond the obligation, and the Plaintiff is able to seek the revocation of the entire joint and several guarantee act.

Therefore, the court below's order to revoke, as a fraudulent act, only the part of the above joint and several guarantee contract, which led to the debtor's non-party 1's passive property to exceed the active property, is justifiable in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier. The ground of appeal that the above joint and several guarantee contract should be revoked in whole or that the contract does not constitute a portion of the contract cannot be accepted.

3. As to the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below that the above joint and several sureties contract does not constitute false representation in the conspiracy cannot be deemed to have erred by mismisunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)