1. The defendant's document of promissory notes No. 63, No. 2005 against the plaintiff is based on the defendant's authentication of the law firm.

1. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the face value of KRW 38,000,000, and the due date of March 31, 2005, and the notary public prepared a notarial deed stating the terms of acceptance for compulsory execution against the instant Promissory Notes (hereinafter “notarial deed”) under Article 63 on the commission of a certified judicial scrivener who represented the original Defendant by the notary public.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. As the payment date of the Promissory Notes of this case is March 31, 2005, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the Promissory Notes of this case has expired on March 31, 2008, and the compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case has to be rejected.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense, even if the period of extinctive prescription expires, the Defendant received part of the collection order regarding the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s bank based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, and thus, waived the benefit of extinctive prescription because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection in the process.

B. The facts of recognition 1) On December 26, 2014, based on the authentic deed of a promissory note in this case, the Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Western District Court for the attachment and collection order of deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s bank, etc. on December 26, 2014. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant received the attachment and collection order of the deposit claims against the Plaintiff’s bank (Seoul Western District Court 2014TF) (the Seoul Western District Court 2014TF). On March 13, 2015, the Bank paid KRW 7,340,377 in total to the Plaintiff on March 13, 2015, and the Plaintiff filed an immediate appeal against the above attachment and collection order on January 8, 2015, and submitted the reasons for appeal on January 22, 2015. The grounds for appeal in this case.