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

D The date of issuance was 34,50,000 won at face value, 34,50,000 won at the time of payment, and on December 29, 2014 (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”).

B. The addressee of the bill of this case was acquired by Defendant B in blank.

C. On October 2, 2014, Defendant B endorsed and transferred the Promissory Notes to Defendant C. Defendant C endorsed and transferred the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff endorsed and transferred the Promissory Notes to Korea Co., Ltd., and Korea Co., Ltd. endorsed and transferred the Promissory Notes to Korea.

The bill of this case was presented at the date of payment without supplementation by the addressee, but the bill was rejected.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff currently holds the bill of this case, and since the bill of this case was presented for payment but was rejected, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who is the endorser, seek to pay the amount of money equivalent to that of the bill of this case through the exercise of the right of recourse.

B. In order to exercise the right of recourse against the endorsers of a promissory note, it needs to be duly presented with a promissory note stating the requirements under Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. According to the above recognition, it is recognized that the Promissory note in this case was issued with a blank stating the payee column, and the bill in this case was presented with a blank stating the requirements for the bill, and it was not supplemented, and it was not supplemented within the statutory period. Thus, the holder of the Promissory Notes in this case, etc., who did not present a lawful payment system, lost its right of recourse. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.