1. The Defendants each of the KRW 10,750,000 to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from November 12, 1993 to April 25, 2018.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. D shall include (1) Promissory Notes No. E, face value No. 21,500,000, issuer Seoin Construction Co., Ltd, and date of payment on November 12, 1993 (hereinafter “ Promissory Notes No. 1”).

(2) The Promissory Notes No. F, face value 19,00,000, issuer friendly Construction Co., Ltd., due date, July 28, 1994 (hereinafter “ Promissory Notes No. 2”).

(3) Check No. G, face value 20,000,000, issuer friendly Construction Co., Ltd., and due date for payment (hereinafter “No. 3 of this case”).

) The Plaintiff’s endorsement and assignment was the final holder of the Promissory Notes and the Current Number of Shares, but the Plaintiff offered a payment proposal, but refused payment on the ground of non-transaction, etc.

B. Meanwhile, D died on September 29, 2016. On the other hand, D’s wife and the Defendants, as the deceased’s wife and ASEAN, own 41.5/1,277 shares in D’s 83/1,277 shares (hereinafter “D’s shares”) out of 1,174 square meters in Kusi-si, Sinsi, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendants on April 6, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-6, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. Therefore, the Defendants, as co-inheritors of endorser D, are obligated to pay the instant promissory note amount, the per share amount, and damages for delay at the inheritance rate, unless there are special circumstances to the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the extinctive prescription had expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

B. Examining the part of promissory note No. 1 of this case, the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted since the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against D shares of this case on November 26, 1993 (Evidence No. 2 of this case), and the interruption of extinctive prescription by provisional attachment continues to exist during the period in which the preservation of execution of provisional attachment remains effective, and the period of the provisional attachment as of November 17, 2017 exceeds the period of filing a lawsuit.