1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. According to Gap's evidence No. 1 as to the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant issued and delivered to the plaintiff on November 3, 1999 a promissory note with a face value of 114,90,00,00 won at face value, the place of issue, the place of payment, Seoul, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment, and the designated parties signed and sealed them as joint and several sureties, and it can be recognized that the notarial deed was prepared. Thus, the defendant and the designated parties are jointly and severally liable to pay the above KRW 114,90,000,00

2. As a defense against the defense and the defense, the defendant's defense that the above promissory note credit had already expired, the payment presentation for a bill payable at sight must be made within one year from the date of its issuance (Article 34 (1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). If there is no lawful payment presentation within the said period, it shall be deemed that the due date has arrived at the end of that period, and if there is no legal payment presentation within the said period, the extinctive prescription of the claim for the bill shall run from that time on the date of maturity (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da40352, Nov. 15, 2007). The above promissory note was issued on Nov. 3, 199 with the due date at sight, and there is no evidence suggesting that there was a payment system within one year thereafter, and since the maturity of the above bill shall expire on Nov. 3, 200; since the subsequent bill had already been filed on Nov. 4, 2000, the plaintiff's claim for the above promissory note had already expired.

As such, the defendant's above defense is reasonable.

Before the expiration of the statute of limitations, the Plaintiff asserted that C paid money to D, the Plaintiff’s obligee, at the Plaintiff’s direction, from June 200 to July 2005. Since enforcement was conducted around January 2004, around August 2003, and around August 2008, the statute of limitations has been interrupted. However, each of the items of the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 5, on the sole basis of the statement of the evidence No. 3-1 to No. 5, the Defendant and the designated parties, were part of the promissory note to the Plaintiff.