The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the second 14-16 of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 1.1. (2)) (the part of the judgment of the court of first instance) is to be “the defendant”; (b) “the defendant” is to be “the plaintiff”; and (c) “the name of the defendant” is to be “the name of the plaintiff”; and (d) the argument that the plaintiff adds in the trial of first instance is to be added is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of “the next 2. Additional

2. Additional determination

A. On October 2004, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that, inasmuch as the prescription period for the underlying claim was interrupted by filing an application for voluntary auction on the real estate under the name of the Defendant, Ansan-gu H H H J on July 18, 2014 in order to exercise the said loan claim, the said promissory note claim has not expired.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize D as having approved the above loan repayment obligation on October 2004, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the Plaintiff asserted that D had not extinguished the secured debt by approving the above loan repayment obligation around October 2003, even in the case of Suwon District Court 2015Na44738, which is related to the case, the Plaintiff asserted that D had not extinguished the secured debt by accepting the above loan repayment obligation on or around October 2003, however, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was rejected, and its assertion was not accepted, and in this case, the time when the debt approval was granted was otherwise asserted). The cause of interrupting prescription occurred

Even if the period of exercise of the right to supplement the blank is expired, it cannot be exercised with a promissory note extinguished by the prescription. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is no longer reasonable.

B. Determination 1 on a promissory note claim amounting to KRW 20 million) The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is the Defendant, and D (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”).

on October 23, 1991, par value 20 million issued to E.