2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On July 2013, the Plaintiff issued, respectively, to the Defendant, a promissory note of KRW 30,000,000 (E; hereinafter “first Promissory Notes”) stated as the issuer C, payee D, and due date of payment on September 14, 2013, and a promissory note of KRW 41,970,000 (F; hereinafter “second Promissory Notes”) stated as the issuer C, payee D, due date of payment on November 14, 2013; and the place of payment on the face value of KRW 41,970,00 (F; hereinafter “instant Second Promissory Notes”).

B. On September 13, 2013, the instant bill No. 1: G, the final holder of the instant bill, G, and the instant bill No. 2, on November 14, 2013, each of the face value of the instant bill was paid to the said final holder upon the presentation of payment to the relevant last holder.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, each entry in this Court's Thai Nos. 3-1 and 3-2, each order to submit financial information to an enterprise bank's U.S. branch, reply to the submission of financial information, the whole purport of

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant delivered to the plaintiff a copy of the register of six real estate lots such as H, I, Nowon-gu in Seoul, J, K (including buildings), L, and M, and a written consent for the provision of security in the name of the non-party N, the owner of the land located in the above Asan city. The value of the above real estate is equivalent to one billion won, and if the product is supplied as security and wholesale is supplied on credit to the manufacturing company, it would be competitive, and if wholesale is conducted on credit, it would be an advance payment to the plaintiff for the payment of money for the distribution of profits generated from the sale of the goods to be provided as security or expenses incurred in the above provision of security. The plaintiff trusted this and delivered the first and second bills to

The defendant did not offer the security that was subsequently promised to the plaintiff. Nevertheless, since the bill Nos. 1 and 2 of this case were distributed and the amount of the bill was settled to the last holder, the defendant accepted unjust enrichment equivalent to the amount of the bill and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, the plaintiff's claim is made to