1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 18, 199, the Plaintiff lent KRW 54.1 million to the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, on August 18, 199, the Defendant issued to the Plaintiff a promissory note with a face value of KRW 54,100,000,000,000,000,000 due date on August 18, 1999 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”). On August 18, 199, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of promissory note under the Chap Law Office No. 818 of August 18, 199.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay 54,100,000 won to the plaintiff and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense against the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the plaintiff's loan claims or bill bills against the defendant.

The fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 54.1 million to the Defendant around August 18, 199 and received the Promissory Notes in which the payment date was made at sight from the Defendant is to be made within one year from the date of issuance. As such, the payment proposal of the Promissory Notes in sight is to be made within one year from the date of issuance. Thus, the payment date of the above loans is to be August 18, 200. Thus, it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on January 20, 2015 after ten years from the date of payment of the above loans, and the above loans have already expired before the lawsuit in this case was filed.

I would like to say.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s claim is asserted as a claim for bills of exchange, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is clearly recorded as of January 20, 2015 when three years have elapsed since the date of payment for bills of exchange, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for bills of exchange also expired by prescription.

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is well-grounded, and the plaintiff's assertion is eventually groundless without examining the defendant's different arguments.