1. Certificate No. 306 of Law Office No. 2004 issued by a notary public against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) of the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2004, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay KRW 131.5 million to the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff’s Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”). On March 30, 2004, the Plaintiff drafted a promissory note No. 130,000 won in face value and face value, and on May 30, 2004 (hereinafter “instant promissory note No. 130,000 won in face value and face value, and on May 30, 2004, in order to secure the obligation to pay the said agreed amount.

B. On February 14, 2014, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claims, etc. based on the instant notarial deed as Seoul Central District Court 2014TTA, 4887. On February 28, 2014, the Defendant issued a seizure and collection order on the part of KRW 100 million out of the instant promissory note deposit claims (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The fact that the payment date of the Promissory Notes was on May 30, 2004, based on the determination as to the cause of the claim is as seen earlier. Therefore, the claim of the Promissory Notes was completed upon the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations as stipulated by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from the said payment date on May 29, 2007.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of the Promissory Notes against the plaintiff should not be permitted.

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the Promissory Notes claim in this case was interrupted since the above decision was delivered to the third debtor on August 11, 2005 with a seizure and collection order based on the No. 1 of August 5, 2005, which was before the expiration of the statute of limitations.

B. Each entry of evidence Nos. 5 and 10 and the purport of the whole pleadings.