1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Upon the occurrence of each claim for a bill of exchange, the defendant as the drawer and the plaintiff as the payee, and the issue date as of March 31, 2003, the four copies of the notarial deed of promissory notes as follows were drawn up by the notary public as of March 559 through 562 of the Dasan General Law Office No. 2003, and the fact that the plaintiff is in possession of the plaintiff can be acknowledged by the statements set forth in Gap No. 1-4.

The par value of KRW 10,00,000 and the due date of September 30, 2003

The par value of KRW 10,00,000 and the due date of December 30, 2003.

The par value of KRW 10,00,000 and the due date of June 30, 2004

On September 2, 2004, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the above face value of KRW 37,500,000 and damages for delay on September 30, 2004. The claim against the issuer of a promissory note is complete unless it is exercised within three years from the maturity date (Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). Since it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 1, 2014, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case had already expired as alleged by the Defendant.

3. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 37,500,00 to B, but filed a complaint by C due to C’s failure to repay it, and the Defendant filed a complaint on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim is a claim for a loan, not a bill payment.

However, insofar as there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant assumed the above loan obligations against the Plaintiff in addition to the issuance of promissory notes as above while preparing and delivering a notarial deed, and the Plaintiff is not a loan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s right to claim of this case against the Defendant shall be loaned, as otherwise alleged in the above.