A. On May 26, 2014, Daenam Industries Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Youngnam Industry Development”) issued an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) at the Industrial Bank of Korea’s seat and issued it to the Defendant Youngnam Industry Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Youngnam Industry Development”).

B. Defendant Yong-Nam Industrial Development: (a) Defendant Yong-Nam; (b) Defendant Yong-Nam Industries Development; (c) Defendant Yong-Nam Industries Development was endorsed and transferred to Defendant Young-Nam Industries Development; (d) Defendant dlimpool Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Dlimpo”); (c) Defendant Dlimpo General Co., Ltd.; and (d) Dupo General Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd.; and (e) the Plaintiff respectively

C. The Plaintiff presented a payment proposal of the instant bill within the deadline, but the payment was refused.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant A: A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and the remainder of the purport of the entire pleadings: Service by publication (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendants, the endorser of the Promissory Notes, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the final holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 36,00,003 and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in each of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, from August 29, 2014, which is the day following the payment date, until February 8, 2015; Defendant A, until January 13, 2015; and Defendant D, until December 17, 2014, respectively, at the rate of 36,00,000 won per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, as requested by the Plaintiff.

3. As to Defendant A’s assertion, Defendant A asserts that, on June 24, 2014, the instant bill was issued from Defendant Yong-Nam Industrial Development, and returned the instant bill to Defendant Yong-Nam Industrial Development again on June 25, 2014, on the following day, Defendant Yong-Nam Industrial Development. Therefore, Defendant A is not liable as an endorser.

However, the defendant A recognized earlier.