1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 77,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from May 26, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence No. 1; (c) evidence No. 2; and (d) the purport of the entire pleadings.

On November 17, 2016, the Defendant issued and delivered to B an electronic undertaking note (hereinafter referred to as “instant Promissory Notes”) which is the Nong Bank, the amount of KRW 77,000,000, the due date of which is KRW 706-41, the lower limit of which is the west-si, Kimpo-si, the lower limit of which is 19 April 19, 2017.

B. B is currently holding by the Plaintiff, after endorsement on the Promissory Notes in this case, and then deliver them to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff presented payment of the Promissory Notes at the place of payment, but was rejected on the ground of “the receipt of an accident report” and “the acceptance of an accident report.”

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 77,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 26, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant concluded a construction contract with B on June 2016 on the construction of electric installations (hereinafter “instant construction”). On the ground that B requested the Defendant to pay part of the construction cost prior to the payment of the construction cost, the Defendant issued and delivered to B a total of four promissory notes (total face value of KRW 231,00,000,000), including the instant promissory notes.

However, since B did not properly progress the construction work, there was no right to receive the construction cost, and the Plaintiff knowingly knew that there was no such underlying relationship, and acquired the Promissory Notes in this case with the knowledge that there was no such underlying relationship, and the human defense did not cut off, so the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the amount to the Plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, even if it is assumed that B does not have a cause-related claim against the defendant, the defendant submitted it to him.