A. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff issued to D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), a promissory note with a face value of 70,000,000 won at the face value, and the payment place, place of payment, and place of issuance as of July 1, 2014, respectively (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On the same day, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed with the intent to recognize that there is no objection even if he/she is immediately subject to compulsory execution (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. On May 19, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) borrowed KRW 172,622,650 from D on January 5, 2015 and delay damages at KRW 30% per annum (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”); (b) on the same day, when a notary public C joint office No. 335 fails to perform a monetary obligation under the said monetary loan agreement, the Plaintiff drafted a notarized deed to the effect that he/she, even being immediately subject to compulsory execution, does not object to the said monetary loan agreement (hereinafter “notarial deed”).

C. On September 2, 2016, the merger D between the Defendant and D was dissolved after the merger with the Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant” without distinguishing before and after the merger). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The extinctive prescription of a claim against the issuer of a promissory note that judged on the notarial deed of this case is complete if it is not exercised within three years from maturity.

The fact that the date of payment of the Promissory Notes was July 1, 2014 is recognized as above. As such, the right to claim based on the Promissory Notes of this case was extinguished by the prescription on July 1, 2017, which was three years thereafter.

The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes of this case shall be dismissed.

3. This.