1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (No dispute exists that the stamp image next to the defendants' name is based on the seals of the defendants, and thus the authenticity of the entire document is presumed to be established. In full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each statement of the above notarial deed, the defendants shall issue a promissory note as of January 4, 2005, stating the plaintiff, the amount of 75 million won, the due date, May 10, 2006, and the fact that a notary public makes a notarial deed as of May 106, 2005 to the effect that if the payment of the above notarial note is delayed, the defendants shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff the above 75 million won of the notarial deed, and damages for delay. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendants shall be liable to pay to the plaintiff the above notarial note amount to 75 million won and damages for delay.

2. The Defendants’ defenses asserted that the extinctive prescription of the said promissory note was completed. Thus, the instant claim on the promissory note against the issuer is complete unless it is exercised within three years from the maturity date (Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). As seen earlier, the fact that the maturity date of the said promissory note was on May 10, 2006 is the same, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the said promissory note only on March 17, 2016 after the lapse of three years from the Plaintiff’s maturity is apparent in the record. Thus, the said claim on the promissory note was extinguished by the extinctive prescription.

Therefore, the defendants' defense is justified.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants in this case against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.