계금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.
3...
1. The reasons for citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case are as follows: even if the plaintiff claims for the payment of a promissory note against the defendant C, the period of extinctive prescription of the claim under a promissory note shall be three years from the maturity date (Articles 77 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and the presentation of payment of a sight-paid bill shall be within one year from the date of its issuance (Articles 77 and 34(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), and if there is no lawful presentation of payment within that period, it shall be deemed that the maturity date comes due and the extinctive prescription runs from that date. In full view of the purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence No. 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the plaintiff issued and delivered a promissory note with the maturity date of 20 million won at sight and the plaintiff's claim for the suspension of the payment of the promissory note within 40 years from the expiration date of 203.4 years from the above.
2. The plaintiff added, after the successful bidder was dispatched due to the plaintiff's reasons on December 18, 2003, the plaintiff was not paid the prize until it was sold as above among the successful bidder's members until December 18, 2006.