A. On the basis of the facts stated above, Defendant A Co., Ltd.: (a) KRW 100 million as of January 15, 2014; and (b) KRW 100 million as of May 15, 2014 as of the date of payment; and (c) one promissory note, the payment place of which is the U.S. branch office of Korea Bank (hereinafter “instant promis

(2) In the first endorsement column of the Promissory Notes, Defendant B indicated that Defendant B’s endorsement was made to Defendant B, Defendant C in the second endorsement column, and Defendant C in the third endorsement column, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

3) The Plaintiff, as the final holder of the Promissory Notes in this case, presented the payment of the Promissory Notes in this case at the above payment place on May 15, 2014, but was rejected on the ground of a report of acceptance. [The Plaintiff’s payment was refused on the ground of a report of acceptance.]

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant Mine Construction Co., Ltd., the endorser of the instant promissory note, is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the instant promissory note, barring any special circumstance. 2) Defendant Mine P Co., Ltd., which endorsed and transferred the instant promissory note to D for the discount of the instant promissory note, and Eul again requested the Plaintiff to pay the discount of the instant promissory note, but the Plaintiff acquired the instant promissory note as it was as it was for the payment of the Plaintiff’s bonds. Accordingly, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff acquired the instant promissory note as it was defective in the relationship between the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant Co., Ltd., the debtor, with respect to the instant promissory note, and the person who received a claim pursuant to the instant promissory note as to the Defendant’s claim against the Defendant under the instant promissory note, in the absence of any grounds.