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

A. On December 28, 2018, Non-Party D Co., Ltd issued to the Defendant an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) with the maturity of KRW 39,50,000, and the maturity of May 10, 2019.

B. On January 31, 2019, the Defendant endorsed to Non-Party F Co., Ltd. as the first endorsement of the instant bill, and on February 1, 2019, the F Co., Ltd. endorsed to the Plaintiff as the second endorsement of the instant bill.

C. However, the bill of this case was final and conclusive.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of the bill to the plaintiff, who is a lawful holder of the bill of this case, as the endorser of the bill of this case.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the bill of this case is a non-endorsed bill, and therefore, the plaintiff is not liable as an endorser.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the bill of exchange, the defendant may recognize the fact of endorsement on January 31, 2019 as the first endorsement to F Co., Ltd. on the following grounds: (a) the endorsement prohibited; (b) the endorser bears the warranty liability only for his own direct endorsement in the case of endorsement prohibited; and (c) the respondent is not liable for the subsequent endorsement (the latter part of Article 15(2) and Article 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act); and (d) the purport of the entire argument in the bill of exchange in the document No. 1, and (e) the bill of exchange in the document No. 1, Article 77(1)1 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.