1. Examining the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to the grounds of appeal on the exclusion period in light of the relevant legal doctrine, it is justifiable for the lower court to have rejected the Defendant’s ground of appeal that the lawsuit seeking the revocation of the fraudulent act was instituted after the lapse of the exclusion period of one year as stipulated in Article 406(2) of the Civil Act, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no

2. As to the ground of appeal on the preserved claim

A. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s joint and several several liability claim against C constitutes a preserved claim of this case, on August 28, 2009, on the ground that: (a) the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to D on November 28, 2009, set the due date for repayment; and (b) C had joint and several liability therefor.

B. However, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

1. There was a perception that the purpose of the use of a promissory note is to secure the obligations of a certain person against the issuer of a promissory note.

Even if such fact is recognized as one of the active factors in recognizing that the issuer of a promissory note has an intention to bear a civil guarantee obligation, it cannot be inferred that a guarantee contract under the civil law is established between the issuer of a promissory note and the obligee.

Furthermore, even if a creditor bears a civil guarantee obligation for a debt that is the cause of the issuance of a promissory note from the creditor’s standpoint, the issuer of a promissory note was willing to demand the issuer of the promissory note, and the issuer of the promissory note also issued the promissory note in response to such intent and obligation of the creditor.