1. Promissory notes, No. 1463, 2006, drawn up by a law firm citizens against the plaintiff on November 6, 2006.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 2, the fact that a promissory note No. 1 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) written out on July 31, 2006, including: (a) KRW 200 million at face value; (b) KRW 31,00; and (c) KRW 1,000,000, the date of issuance; and (d) KRW 1,000,000; and (e) KRW 1,000,000; and (e) KRW 6,00,000; and (e) KRW 1,00,000; and (e) KRW 1,00,00,000; and (e

The presentation for payment of a bill payable at sight is to be made within one year from the date of issuance, and if there is no lawful presentation within that period, it shall be deemed that the maturity comes on the last day of that period, and it shall be deemed that the extinctive prescription of the obligation of the bill will run from that time. In the case of the Promissory Notes, the maturity of the Plaintiff’s obligation of the bill of this case, which is the issuer, comes on July 31, 2007 after one year from the date of issuance, and three years from that following day, the extinctive prescription of the Defendant’s obligation of the Promissory Notes against the Plaintiff has already expired, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case is no longer permissible.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of the executory power of the notarial deed of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by citing it.