1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 2006, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant a promissory note in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”) at the face value of KRW 35 million, payment at sight, place of issue, place of payment, and place of payment.

On February 2, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed stating that if a notary public delays the payment of the Promissory Notes under Law Firm D’s No. 259 with respect to the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff shall accept compulsory execution.

B. On November 21, 2016, on the basis of the authentic deed of the instant bill, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claims against the Korea Water Resources Corporation under the Daejeon District Court’s Branch 2016TTT7312, and served on the garnishee on November 24, 2016.

C. On June 29, 2017, the Daejeon District Court: (a) drafted a distribution schedule that distributes the amount of KRW 20,281,223 to the Defendant, who is the first collection right holder, to the deposit of the Korea Water Resources Corporation; and (b) the said court, to the Defendant, who is the first collection right holder.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the amount of distribution of the Defendant, and filed the instant lawsuit on July 6, 2017, which was within seven days thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 7 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s claim on the instant bill was extinguished by prescription on August 14, 2010, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

In addition, on November 2007, the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant the entire amount of the Promissory Notes, and the Defendant cancelled the provisional attachment execution on the E Forest and Forest Land No. 1163 square meters in Ansan-si.

Therefore, since the above distribution schedule premised on the existence of a claim for the amount of the bill of this case is unlawful, it should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. 1) The presentation for payment of a bill payable at sight must be made within one year from the date of its issuance (which is legitimate within Article 34 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act and the period.