1. The Defendant’s KRW 165,494,794 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from September 30, 2007 to July 12, 2019, and the following.

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff: (a) received a promissory note in the face value “10 million won; (b) the issuer “Defendant”; (c) the place of payment; (d) the date of issuance; and (e) the date of issuance “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”, “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”, and “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”, and “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”, “E” and “F” in the column of the second endorsement; and (e) received a endorsement of each promissory note in the face value “10 million won; (b) the issuer “Defendant”; (c) the place of payment; (d) the place of payment; and (e) the issue date of the “Seoul Special Metropolitan City” as “Seoul Special Metropolitan City” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant check”).

The plaintiff presented the bill of this case and the check at the place of payment on each of the above payment dates, but the payment was rejected on the ground of accident report.

On May 10, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the Promissory Notes, etc. (hereinafter “instant prior suit”) with the Daegu District Court Branch Branching 2006Kadan967, which sought payment of the Promissory Notes and Check (hereinafter “instant prior suit”).

In the previous suit of this case, the Defendant asserted that “The bill and check of this case are in blank to D Co., Ltd. (on hand, E and G) and borrowed the scope of supplement as KRW 10 million, and that “E, etc., write down an agreement and use the face value as a supplement of KRW 100 million, and thus cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.”

On November 27, 2006, the Daegu District Court Branch Branch rendered a payment of the amount calculated at the rate of 200 million won per annum from May 24, 2006 to the day of full payment, on the ground that the Plaintiff cannot be found to have known that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of receiving endorsement and delivery of the bill of this case and the check of this case, even though E, etc. exercised unjustly the right to supplement blanks for the bill of this case, as alleged by the Defendant, on the ground that “The Defendant shall not be found to have known that there was any undue supplement or gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff at the time of receiving endorsement and delivery of the bill of this case.”