1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

With respect to a promissory note issued by the Plaintiff (i.e., the issue date: 2. July 31, 2006; i.e., at sight), the face value of 35,000,000 won, and damages for delay thereof, the Defendant asserts that the claim for the Promissory Notes of this case had already been extinguished upon the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription period under Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act.

In light of this, the right to claim against the drawer under Articles 77 (1) 8 and 70 (1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act shall expire if it is not exercised within three years from the maturity. In addition, since the presentation for payment of a bill payable at sight under Article 34 (1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act must be made within one year from the date of issuance, if there is no lawful presentation within the said period, the due date shall be deemed to expire at the end of the said period, and the statute of limitations for the obligation of the bill shall run from that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40352, Nov. 15, 2007). The statute of limitations for the right to claim the amount of the Promissory Notes sought by the plaintiff shall run from July 31, 2007, which is one year after the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes claimed by the plaintiff ( July 31, 206)

Therefore, it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on July 28, 2015 after three years from July 31, 2007, and as such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the Promissory Notes against the Plaintiff’s assertion had already expired by prescription prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.