1. The defendant's document is based on the original copy of the notarial deed No. 627 of 2008 against the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2008, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) with respect to promissory notes in the face value of KRW 19,000,000,000, issued as No. 627, April 11, 2008, the date of payment, June 18, 2008, and face value of KRW 19,00,000, for the Defendant.

B. Around July 2008, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a seizure and collection order based on the instant notarial deed with the Seoul Central District Court 2008TTTT15208. On July 7, 2008, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”) against the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against eight banks including D from the above court against the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The instant notarial deed as to the cause of the claim is a notarized promissory note, and the three-year extinctive prescription period is applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da169, Apr. 14, 1992). The extinctive prescription period of June 17, 201, which was three years after June 18, 2008, was expired.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff based on the notarial deed of this case should not be denied.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription should progress from that time, since the Plaintiff was inspecting and received the instant seizure collection order on July 23, 2013.

However, according to the Defendant’s above assertion, even if the extinctive prescription of the notarial deed of this case is in progress from July 23, 2013, the extinctive prescription of the notarial deed of this case was completed on July 22, 2016 after three years from that date.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is therefore without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.