1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 13, 44 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 17 and all pleadings:

The plaintiff is a company with the purpose of drug wholesale business, etc., and the defendant is a pharmacist who has operated the K pharmacy, E pharmacy, and G pharmacy, and H is the defendant's husband.

B. The Plaintiff supplied the drugs to the Defendant until the Defendant closes down his pharmacy on August 3, 2006, and received a promissory note issued by the Defendant as a security for the payment of the price. The Plaintiff from February 27, 2006 to the same year.

7. Promissory notes issued by and in the name of the defendant that were received by and held by the end of 28. (hereinafter “each of the Promissory Notes in this case”) are as set out below (The Promissory Notes Schedule):

On June 30, 2006, June 30, 2006: 10,000 L 10,000,000 6. 6. 30,000 on February 31, 2006; 10,000 N 50,00 on March 31, 2006; 20. 6. 30,000 on August 31, 2006; 20. 6. 6. 0,00,00 on August 30, 206; 30. 6. 6. 0,00,00,00 on June 30, 2006; 6. 30,00,000 on June 30, 2006;

C. However, on September 19, 2007, H was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 months, fine 20 million won, and fine 20 million won on the ground of the crime that: (a) forged a promissory note 36 in the name of the defendant at the Seoul Central District Court to use a total of 1.225 billion won, and a total of 512.5 billion won per unit; and (b) forged a false statement of 20 million won.

9. A promissory note that H was forged under the name of the Defendant is included in the No. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, and 12 of each of the Promissory Notes in the instant case.

On the other hand, the defendant on 208.