1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant issued and delivered to C a promissory note with the face value of KRW 50 million, issue date August 24, 2009, December 31, 2009, and payee C, and on August 24, 2009, a notary public issued and delivered to C a notarized deed with the law firm No. 296 with respect to the said promissory note as of August 24, 2009.

B. On March 8, 2010, the Plaintiff acquired all the claims on the Promissory Notes against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) from C, and the assignment notice reached the Defendant on March 19, 2010.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence A No. 1-3, Purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The Plaintiff, based on the judgment, seeks payment of the instant promissory note claim that the Defendant acquired from C, and as to this, the Defendant’s defense of the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the instant promis

The Plaintiff is seeking payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes against the Defendant, the drawer, as a transferee of the Promissory Notes. The claim on the Promissory Notes against the issuer of the Promissory Notes is extinguished by the extinctive prescription, unless it is exercised for three years from the due date (Articles 77(1)8, 70(1), and 78(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). The fact that the due date for the payment of the Promissory Notes was December 31, 2009 is the same as seen earlier, and it is apparent that three years have elapsed from May 16, 2019, which is the date for the application for the payment order of this case. Therefore, the period of prescription expired, barring any special circumstances.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion and proof on the re-defense that can legally prevent the expiration of the extinctive prescription is insufficient.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s assertion to the effect that it exercises rights based on the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes. However, it is insufficient to prove that C had any claim corresponding to the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes in this case, as well as to prove that C had the Defendant. The claims that the Plaintiff acquired from C are all indicated in the Promissory Notes