1. The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff was the deed of January 11, 2007, 2007, drawn up by the law firm dicule General Law Office.

In light of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there is no dispute between the parties, or according to the plaintiff's statement, the plaintiff prepared and delivered a notarial deed of a promissory note to the defendant on January 11, 2007. The promissory note contains the plaintiff, the payee, the defendant, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the date of payment, the date of issuance, the date of payment, the date of January 10, 2005, and January 15, 2007. Based on this, the defendant can be found to have applied for the seizure and collection order of the plaintiff's benefit as the Chuncheon District Court 2017TTB67 against the plaintiff's benefit on March 27, 2017.

According to the above facts, the extinctive prescription of a claim against the plaintiff, who is the issuer under the above promissory note of the defendant, has expired three years after the maturity, and as long as the extinctive prescription has expired, compulsory execution based on the above notarial deed shall be dismissed.

As to this, the defendant shall pay 50,000 won on May 2, 2017 among the obligations of the above Promissory Notes three times by the plaintiff.

7.25.12 million won;

8. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that he/she given up the benefit of extinctive prescription or expressed his/her intent to repay the debt with a total of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff and the Defendant have repaid the obligations of the Promissory Notes, not other borrowed money in question.

Plaintiff

claim shall be accepted.