약정금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
According to Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the defendant issued one promissory note with the defendant as the payee on January 27, 2003, with the payment of KRW 35,000,000 and the payment of KRW 35,000,000 as the payment at sight is recognized.
However, in the case of a promissory note issued at sight with the payment date as above, it must be presented for payment within one year (Article 77(1)2 and Article 34 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and the statute of limitations for the issuer’s claim against the issuer is three years (Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). Since the claim of this case was filed after the one-year payment period from the date of the above issuance and the three-year prescription period from the date of the above issuance, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case expired.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.