A. On March 3, 2014, the Defendant issued two copies of the electronic bill dated June 4, 2014 (hereinafter “instant bill”) and delivered to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant bill”) each of the instant bills to B, and the Defendant endorsed and delivered them to B.

(2) The Plaintiff, who received endorsement or transfer of the Promissory Notes from B, presented the payment lawfully at the date of payment, but refused payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, as the endorser of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the lawful holder of the Promissory Notes, the total sum of KRW 80,000,000 ( KRW 40,000 x 2) and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 20, 2014 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the copy of the Promissory Notes sought by the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment

A. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the purport that it is unreasonable for the Plaintiff to seek the responsibility of the Promissory Notes against the Defendant without resorting to the rehabilitation procedure, on the grounds that, as the rehabilitation procedure for Lescisf, the issuer of the Promissory Notes, commenced, and the Plaintiff’s claim was reported as rehabilitation claim in the instant procedure, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant without going through the rehabilitation procedure.

B. However, the Defendant, separate from the issuer of the Promissory Notes, bears the obligation to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff as an endorser, who is not the issuer of the Promissory Notes. Thus, the Defendant, as the drawer, agreed to accept the obligation.

(b).