1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or recognize Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7 and evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 as a whole by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings.

[1] The plaintiff is a legal entity established pursuant to the Vietnam law, and is operating a "Gam Strip" hotel in the Vietnam roof space (hereinafter "the hotel of this case").

On December 7, 2014, the Defendant issued a certificate of bonder to the Plaintiff to the effect that “The Plaintiff received USD 645,160 (hereinafter “U.S. dollars”) from the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of 18%, and guarantee that adequate funds to pay the above amount have been deposited in the principal’s authorized account.” On December 8, 2014, the Defendant issued the certificate of bonder to the effect that “Additional USD 513,833 was determined as 18% per annum and received at an annual interest rate.”

On December 7, 2014, the Defendant issued, to the Plaintiff, a promissory note (hereinafter “the Promissory note of this case”) whose payee stated as the hotel of this case and whose maturity, overdue interest, payment place, and issue date are in blank.

In the face of the above Promissory Notes, the explanatory note is indicated as follows:

1. The drawer shall grant the authority to supplement the portion in blank of the promissory note (including the amount of the note, the date of payment, the place of payment, the interest, etc.) to the “Bam Strip”

3.The Promissory Notes may be executed in the Vietnam court or in any court of the location of the issuer or its assets.

6.The Promissory Notes shall be the applicable law of Vietnam.

The Plaintiff exercised its right to supplement the bill amount of this case by stating “1,158,93 dollars”, “1,58,93 dollars”, “201.8.8,” “Seoul Seocho-gu,” “18% per annum in the overdue interest column,” and “17 December 7, 2014 in the issue date column.” The Plaintiff currently holds the Promissory Notes.

[2]