A. The Defendant issued one copy of the electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) as follows.

No. A: The date of issue of KRW 100,000: July 14, 2015: The date of payment: November 13, 2015: The place of payment: the place of payment at both branches of the National Bank of Korea and the branch of the National Bank of Korea: the payee at both branches of the National Bank of Korea and the National Bank of Korea: B

B. The bill of this case is a first endorsement in the name B, a second endorsement in the name of the new company, a third endorsement in the name C, a fourth endorsement in the name D, and a fifth endorsement in the name of the plaintiff.

C. On November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff presented the instant bill to the said place of payment, but was denied on the ground of the acceptance of the bill.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. According to the facts of the determination on the cause of the claim, the Defendant, who is the drawer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 100,000,000 per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from November 14, 2015 to June 3, 2016, which is the day following the date when the payment of the Promissory Notes is presented, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day when the payment is to be made.

B. (1) On the summary of the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant, by deceiving B, the addressee of the Promissory Notes, to lend the amount corresponding to the amount of the Promissory Notes to B, issued the Promissory Notes to B, but in fact, reported the acceptance of the Promissory Notes as it did not receive the amount corresponding to the amount of the Promissory Notes from B. In fact, the Promissory Notes did not have a causal relationship, and the Plaintiff knowingly acquired the Promissory Notes, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is unlawful.

(2) Determination.