B On May 27, 2014, around 1:03, the Plaintiff exchanged the instant check with cash at a foreigner-only casino operated by the Plaintiff.

On May 27, 2014, around 11:25, the Defendant requested the new bank for the politics of payment of the instant check by telephone. On June 3, 2014, the Defendant applied for a public summons as Seoul East Eastern District Court 2014Kadan160 on the instant check. Accordingly, the said court issued a public summons on June 5, 2014 on the instant check.

In addition, around September 2014, the Defendant submitted to the above court a written opinion that “The Defendant issued the instant check to be rapidly commercialized, and the Defendant filed a report on the loss of the instant check on the following day after the date when the check was cut off, as the contact was cut off,” in the public summons procedure (A8).

By September 24, 2014, the said court rendered a nullification judgment on the instant check pursuant to Article 487(1) of the Civil Procedure Act on September 24, 2014.

However, on May 28, 2014, prior to the application for the public summons, the Defendant: (a) as the other party to the Plaintiff on May 28, 2014; (b) suspended the New Bank and Nonghyup Bank on May 27, 2014, which was paid due to misunderstanding of transaction relations with B; (c) however, (d) was confirmed to be erroneous and discharged to B with the amount equivalent to KRW 50 million. It is understood that there was an inevitable inconvenience; (d) written confirmation of fact that the problem was settled by misunderstanding with each other, and (e) delivered it to the Plaintiff through B through the said confirmation document.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 3, 4-1 to 4-30, 6, 8, 14-14.