1. Promissory notes, No. 2663, No. 2006, issued by the defendant against the plaintiff by a notary public of the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 13, 2006, the Plaintiff, jointly with the Plaintiff’s husband C, issued to the Defendant a promissory note with a face value of KRW 150 million, the payee, the Defendant, and the due date for payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On October 13, 2006, a notary public drafted a notarial deed stating that there is no objection even if he is subject to compulsory execution, when he delays the payment of the said promissory note under the law firm’s General Law Office No. 2663 in 206.

B. The Defendant did not present the payment of the Promissory Notes within one year from the date of issuance.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 3-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the claim must be made within one year from the date of issuance (Article 34(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). If there is no lawful presentation within the said period, it shall be deemed that the payment has come due on the last day of the said period, and the extinctive prescription for the obligation of a promissory note shall run from that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40352, Nov. 15, 2007). The extinctive prescription for the claim against the drawer of a promissory note expires unless it is exercised for three years.

As to the instant case, the instant Promissory Notes, which were not presented for payment, came due on October 13, 2007, and due date of October 13, 2007, and were extinguished by prescription on October 13, 2010, when three years have elapsed since that date.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes of this case shall not be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.