1. No. 54 of 2005, a deed drawn up by the notary public against the plaintiff of the defendant in Ansan-do.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 6, 2005, the Plaintiff drafted a promissory note as of January 10, 2005 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) with the addressee, the face value of KRW 5.5 million, and the due date.

B. On August 12, 2014, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claims in the Plaintiff’s new bank under this court’s 2014TT No. 5145 on the basis of the instant notarial deed, and the said order reached the Plaintiff on August 18, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Main cause of a claim: The plaintiff prepared the notarial deed of this case as a security for payment of KRW 3 million received as a prepaid payment in the Twitk block operated by the defendant; although the above prepaid money was claimed to have been fully repaid while working, there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Preliminary cause of claim: The plaintiff asserts that the defense of invalidity as an anti-social legal act is invalid since the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes in this case is aimed at securing the payment of the amount that is provided as an advance payment for the so-called tweet business that constitutes illegal consideration. However, there is no evidence

C. Preliminary Claim: The fact that the date of payment of the Promissory Notes of this case was January 10, 2005, based on the determination of the extinctive prescription defense is as seen earlier, and the claim of this case was terminated upon the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription period as stipulated by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from the said date on January 9, 2008.

Therefore, inasmuch as there is no assertion or evidence as to the cause of interruption of prescription, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case against the plaintiff by the defendant should be denied.

In addition, the Defendant’s assertion that the extinctive prescription of the loan claim, which is the underlying claim of the Promissory Notes, is ten years.