1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a law firm, therefore, a promissory note No. 99 dated February 10, 2009 against the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The extinctive prescription of a claim on a promissory note against the issuer shall expire if it is not exercised within three years from the due date (Articles 77(1)8, 78(1), and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act);

The Plaintiff issued a promissory note with the issuer as of February 10, 2009, the date of issuance, KRW 20,000, and the due date as of March 30, 2010. In the event of delay in the payment of the said note, the Plaintiff prepared a promissory note No. 1 to the effect that there is no objection even if compulsory execution is conducted, and the said promissory note No. 1 to the effect that there is no objection (hereinafter “the Promissory note No. 1,” and the said notarial deed No. 1, “the instant notarial deed”). On February 10, 2009, the Defendant did not claim for payment of the amount of the promissory note No. 3 years from the due date of payment of the Promissory Notes No. 1, 2009, and the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes No. 3020, Jul. 22, 2016.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted.

2. The Defendant’s defense is defense that the statute of limitations was interrupted since the Plaintiff paid interest on the instant promissory note to the Defendant from July 31, 2009 to January 7, 2015, which is the obligation that caused the instant promissory note payment. However, in cases where the promissory note was received by the method of securing the payment of the underlying claim, the underlying claim and the claim are asserted.