1. Certificates drawn up by C on August 24, 201 by the Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff, No. 001919, a promissory note drawn up by C on August 24, 2011.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim (1) around June 9, 201, when the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 40 million from the Defendant from the Defendant, the Plaintiff, including the Plaintiff, issued a promissory note with four persons including the issuer, KRW 40 million at a par value, KRW 40 million at a sight of the due date, and KRW 40 million at a sight of the due date (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff’s agent D entrusted the law firm by a notary public on August 24, 2011 to the law firm, and “the issuer of the instant promissory note” shall recognize the issuance and signature of the instant promissory note, and, in the event of delay in the payment of the instant promissorysory note, have prepared a notarial deed with the purport that there is no objection even if the instant notarial deed was immediately enforced, or that there is no dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by the evidence attached thereto.

If the purport of the entire argument is added to the above facts, there is no assertion or proof as to the fact that the Promissory Notes in this case is a promissory note payable at sight, and the said Promissory Notes was made within one year from June 9, 201, the issue date of the Promissory Notes.

In such cases, on June 9, 201, when one year from June 9, 201, which was the date of issuance of the Promissory Notes in this case, the maturity of June 9, 201, arrives, and the extinctive prescription of the claim for a promissory note expires from that time (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40352, Nov. 15, 2007). Since the extinctive prescription of the claim for a promissory note expires three years after the maturity date pursuant to Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the claim for a promissorysory note in this case, which is an executive title, expired on June 9, 2015, which was three years after the said maturity date, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, since the promissory note claim of this case does not exist due to its extinguishment, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is enforced.