2. Defendant D.

A. On April 11, 2017, Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) issued to Defendant D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant D”) an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) with H, face value of KRW 1,000,000,000, due date, August 6, 2017; and the due date of the payment bank I Bank (hereinafter “B”) with the electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”).

B. After the division of the bill of this case, with respect to the bill of this case in the face value of KRW 211,200,000 (hereinafter “the bill of this case”) from Defendant D, the bill of this case was endorsed in sequence from Defendant E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant E”), Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant F”), and Defendant G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant G”), to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff currently holds the bill of this case.

C. On August 7, 2017, the date following the maturity date of the Plaintiff presented the instant bill to the I Bank, but the payment was refused due to the shortage of deposit, and the Financial Clearingman, a management agency of electronic bills, was notified of the non-payment electronic document and confirmed it.

On the other hand, on October 27, 2017, while the lawsuit in this case was pending, the Daejeon District Court 2017 Gohap5032 rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation procedures for B, and C, a representative director, was appointed as a custodian on the same day.

In addition, while the Plaintiff reported the above claim as a rehabilitation claim in the above rehabilitation procedure, C (hereinafter “Defendant Manager”) who is the administrator of Defendant B’s rehabilitation debtor, raised an objection thereto.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is presumed to be a lawful holder of the Promissory Notes. Thus, barring any special circumstance, rehabilitation claims against the debtor for rehabilitation, who is the issuer of the Plaintiff’s Promissory Notes, are KRW 211,200,000, and Article 12 of the Issuance and Distribution of Electronic Bills.