1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s mother, from around 2001 to around 2003, lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant as a fund for restaurant operation.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b) The instant loan

On March 15, 2003, in order to secure the payment of the above loan to the Plaintiff, the Defendant and E issued promissory notes (payment date: sight pay, place of issue, and place of payment: each Seoul; hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) with a face value of 200 million won, and on the same day, the said promissory notes were prepared and issued by a notary public with an executory deed under No. 59 of the law firm Franction No. 2003.

C. On October 30, 2006, the Defendant repaid KRW 20 million out of the instant loans to D on October 30, 2006.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim for a promissory note as to the primary claim is the Defendant’s assertion that the payment of KRW 180 million, excluding KRW 20 million already paid as the instant promissory note, was completed. Accordingly, the Defendant’s defense that the extinctive prescription of the said promissory note claim has expired.

On March 15, 2003, the Defendant issued the Promissory Notes in this case, and the fact that the Promissory Notes in this case were bills payable at sight within one year from the date of issuance is identical as seen earlier, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was a presentation within the said period, and thus, the maturity shall be March 15, 2004, which is one year from the date of issuance. It is apparent that the instant lawsuit was filed on March 6, 2017, which was much more than three years ago.

Therefore, the claim for the Promissory Notes was extinguished by prescription.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription was suspended because he was reimbursed KRW 20 million from the defendant as part of the bill bonds from the defendant during December 2007.

However, if the underlying claim and the bill of exchange exist concurrently, the underlying claim.