2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 15, 2005, the Plaintiff: (a) on September 31, 2005, lent KRW 160 million to C, the father of the Defendant, as the due date for reimbursement was determined and lent on September 31, 2005.

B. The Plaintiff failed to repay the loan upon expiration of the maturity period, and the Plaintiff urged C to repay the loan.

C, on December 29, 2015, at the time of payment on behalf of Defendant C, C, and D on behalf of Defendant C, C, and D, written a notarial deed to the effect that, on behalf of the Defendant, both the time of payment, the place of issuance, and the place of payment, the Plaintiff shall issue one promissory note with the face value of KRW 160 million, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and that, upon delay in the payment of the said note, a notarial deed to the effect that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is immediately conducted (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The Plaintiff’s father, who is the Plaintiff’s father, issued the Promissory Notes in order to repay the existing loans on behalf of the Defendant with the Defendant’s seal impression and seal impression, and prepared the Notarial Deed, the Defendant is obligated to pay the instant loans to the Plaintiff.

B. (1) The defendant's assertion (1) does not have borrowed money from the plaintiff, and the defendant's father C does not have the right of representation as to the issuance of the Promissory Notes and the preparation of notarial deeds.

Therefore, the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case and the preparation of authentic deeds are invalid as it constitutes an act of unauthorized representation.

(2) Even if the issuance of this Promissory Notes is valid, the statute of limitations has expired, and if the underlying party’s loan obligation constitutes a commercial obligation, the five-year statute of limitations has expired, and if it constitutes a civil obligation, the ten-year statute of limitations has expired.

C. First of all, we examine the issue of whether C had the authority to act for the defendant at the time of the issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case.