1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the defendant issued and delivered to the plaintiff on November 4, 200 a bill of promissory note No. 1 (hereinafter "the Promissory note in this case") with the face value of KRW 15 million, the place of payment and the place of payment, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the place of issue, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the payee, the date of payment, and the date of payment, March 30, 2005, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case, is liable to pay to the plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory

2. As to the determination of the statute of limitations defense, the defendant's defense that the claim of this case has expired by the statute of limitations.

According to Articles 78 and 70 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the extinctive prescription of a claim on a promissory note against the issuer is complete unless it is exercised within three years from the maturity date. It is evident that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on August 17, 2015, which was the date of payment of the Promissory Notes, three years from March 30, 2005, which was the date of payment of the Promissory Notes. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription of the claim on the Promissory Notes was completed.

As such, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.