The Defendants jointly combine the Plaintiff with KRW 99,00,000, and 6% per annum from January 17, 2019 to September 28, 2020.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D Co., Ltd, on September 19, 2018, issued one copy of the electronic bill of commitment (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) as of January 16, 2019, to an agricultural company on its own influence, with its face value 99,000,000, and the due date.

B. The instant electronic bill was transferred to Defendant B on September 19, 2018, to E Co., Ltd. on September 20, 2018, to F Co., Ltd. on October 17, 2018, to G Co., Ltd. on October 17, 2018, to Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) on October 18, 2018, to H on October 18, 2018, and to the Plaintiff on October 19, 2018.

C. The Plaintiff, the final holder of the instant electronic bill, presented payment at the place of payment on January 16, 2019, which was the maturity date of the said electronic bill, and was refused due to non-transaction.

[Ground for recognition] Defendant B: The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant C: the entries of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the serial number) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff, the final holder of the electronic bill of this case, for which endorsement is continuous, shall be deemed to legally acquire the right to the electronic bill of this case, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the Defendants, the endorser, jointly, are liable to pay to the Plaintiff, the final holder of the electronic bill of this case the amount of KRW 99,00,000, and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from January 17, 2019 to September 28, 2020, which is the date of the last delivery of the copy of the bill of this case, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. Defendant C asserts that the instant electronic bill was borrowed from H, and there is no transactional relationship with the Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant C cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

The parties who have been so claimed shall be against the previous holder.