1. The Defendant’s notary public against the Plaintiff is a promissory note No. 1360 dated September 22, 201, signed by D on September 22, 2011.

1. The Plaintiff and E, on September 8, 201, issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with its face value of KRW 37,458,50, and the due date of October 25, 2014, and the fact that a notary public prepared a promissory note with its executory power under Article 1360 on September 22, 2011 (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) by a notary public does not conflict between the parties or may be acknowledged according to the respective statements in subparagraphs A and 2.

2. The claim on a promissory note, which is judged on the cause of the claim, is not exercised within three years from the due date (Articles 77(1)8 and 70(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act). However, the fact that the due date of the Promissory Notes (the due date) was October 25, 2014 is as seen earlier, and thus, the statute of limitations expired on October 25, 2017, since the claim on the Promissory Notes in this case had expired three years from the due date.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of the Promissory Notes of this case shall not be permitted.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant’s claim for the instant promissory note is aimed at securing the payment of the damages liability to the Defendant, who is a joint issuer, and the extinctive prescription period is five years, and E paid KRW 5,906,835 on 34 occasions from June 2012 to February 2, 2018. As such, the extinctive prescription of the instant promissory note was interrupted.

B. Even if the Promissory Notes aims to secure the payment of damages liability against the Defendant E, the statute of limitations for the Promissory Notes cannot be deemed to have been exercised solely on the sole ground that the Promissory Notes were separate from the underlying claim, and each party’s claim was filed based on the underlying claim, and thus, the statute of limitations cannot be interrupted.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da16378, Jun. 11, 199). In addition, the joint issuers of promissory notes are in an in personam joint and several relationship.

The causes for the interruption of extinctive prescription against E, a joint issuer.