On December 1, 2006, with respect to promissory notes on April 30, 2007, issued to the Plaintiff on the same day, the Defendants were issued and delivered by a notary public under the Notarial Deed No. 1978 of the 2006, a law firm Songpa Joint Law Office, and D was sentenced to suspended execution for fraud in the above criminal case on December 6, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, a judgment as to the ground for a claim as to the whole of the pleadings, and where a third party issues a promissory note on behalf of the debtor and delivers it to the creditor, the same obligation shall be deemed as discharge or double-acceptance, barring any special circumstances.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da4517 delivered on May 7, 1997). According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B issued a promissory note to the Plaintiff with respect to the debt of the D’s above loan to the Plaintiff, thereby accepting D’s debt of the loan to the Plaintiff overlappingly.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the amount of promissory notes or the above loans of KRW 25 million in collaboration with Defendant C and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 5, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order.

The Defendant’s defense is a defense that the Plaintiff’s rights under the promissory note were extinguished by the statute of limitations. Thus, the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s debt on D in addition to the amount of promissory note debt.

(2) On April 30, 2007, the due date determined when acquiring the above debt.