The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. 1) In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants, on October 19, 2009, together with a promissory note consisting of “amounting to KRW 113 million,” “amounting to KRW 13 million,” and “amounting to sight payment” (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

On October 23, 2009, the Plaintiff issued a notarial deed (No. 4775, 2009, No. 4775, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with respect to the Promissory Notes of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

2) The Defendants, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, are jointly obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said Promissory Notes amounting to KRW 113 million and the damages for delay.

B. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted that the instant promissory note credit has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and thus, the Defendants’ claim is examined. (2) Under Articles 77(1)8, 70(1), and 78(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the extinctive prescription is terminated unless the claim against the issuer of a promissory note is exercised for three years from the maturity date (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16214, May 30, 2003). The presentation for payment of a sight bill must be 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 expiration date of the said period has expired, and it shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription will run from that date.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40352 Decided November 15, 2007). 3 The claim of this case is deemed to have been extinguished by the extinctive prescription on October 19, 2013, when one year from October 19, 2009, the date of issuance, which was October 19, 2009 to October 19, 201, and three years from that time.

Therefore, since the claim of this case was extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription, the defendants' defenses can be recognized.