1. A deed prepared on January 18, 2006 by a notary public against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) by the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a person who operated entertainment establishments under the trade name of "C", and the plaintiff is a single-fuse customer of the above entertainment establishments, who was well known with the defendant.

B. On January 18, 2006, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note No. 3 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) signed by a notary public on January 18, 2006, with the face value of KRW 500 million and the due date of payment, April 30, 2006, in accordance with the Promissory Notes No. 3 (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).

C. On December 5, 2014, the Defendant, based on the instant notarial deed, received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the National Bank, etc., as prescribed by this Court No. 2014TT No. 15855.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the judgment on the claim of this case. The debt under the notarial deed of this case is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act with the debt of this case. The fact that the maturity date is April 30, 2006 is the same as seen earlier. Thus, since the promissory note claim of this case has already expired and its extinctive prescription period has already expired, compulsory execution based on the notarial deed of this case shall be rejected.

In regard to this, the defendant approved his debt in the case where the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in 2006, and the defendant found the defendant two to three times each month from around 2007 to around 2009, and prevented the defendant from exercising his legitimate right by promising the repayment of debt, and made the defendant impossible to extinctive prescription, the defendant's assertion for completion of extinctive prescription is an abuse of right against the principle of trust and good faith. Thus, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted, since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above facts.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant’s assertion 1 is the credit payment and the credit payment until September 2005 to the customers of the entertainment tavern operated by the Defendant.