1. Promissory notes No. 2972 delivered on October 31, 2006 by the Defendant’s law firm Seo Sea against the Plaintiff, which was signed by the Defendant on October 31, 2006.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note in Incheon (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 100 million, issue date, October 31, 2008, and the due date, October 31, 2008, respectively. On October 31, 2006, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed with respect to the said promissory note (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) as stated in Paragraph (1) stating that “When the payment of a promissory note is delayed, it shall be deemed that there is no objection even if it is immediately forced execution.”

B. The Defendant did not file a claim for the payment of the Promissory Notes within three years from the date of payment of the Promissory Notes. On October 24, 2017, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction on the land and buildings owned by the Plaintiff with the Incheon District Court C, and filed an application for a compulsory auction on the land and buildings owned by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The period of extinctive prescription of the non-paid debt against the holder of a promissory note issued by the issuer is three years after the due date.

The claim of the Promissory Notes was extinguished upon the lapse of the three years after maturity of October 31, 201.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case is no longer permissible unless there are special circumstances.

The Defendant asserts that, after the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes, the said period of extinctive prescription was interrupted, since the Defendant continued to pay interest of KRW 100 million, which is the underlying debt, to the Defendant until October 30, 2017.

However, in cases where a bill has been received in a way to secure the payment of the underlying claim, the obligee may exercise his/her right at his/her option, separately from the underlying claim and the bill claim, and the claim based on the underlying claim itself is itself.