1. A deed prepared by C by a notary public C belonging to the Suwon District Prosecutors' Office against the plaintiff of the defendant on August 17, 2009, No. 1236.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim should 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, the maturity shall expire at the end of that period, and it shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription of the obligation of the bill shall run from that time.

(2) In light of the above legal principles and records, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) to the Defendant around August 17, 2009, with the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant around August 17, 2009, with the face value of KRW 100,000,000,000, the due date of payment, the place of issuance, and the place of payment (hereinafter “the instant promissory note”), and the Plaintiff, with respect to the said promissory note on the same day, with the certificate No. 1236, written by a notary public C prepared by the Suwon District Prosecutors’ Office to which the Suwon District Public Prosecutor’s Office belongs, with the purport of immediately recognizing compulsory execution.

In light of the foregoing legal principles, the claim for a promissory note under the Promissory Notes in this case may be deemed to have arrived at the maturity of August 17, 2010, which is one year from the date of issuance, and the fact that three years have elapsed thereafter is apparent from the calendar point of view. Thus, the above claim was extinguished by the statute of limitations on August 17, 2013.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed against the defendant against the plaintiff should be rejected.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.