1. The Defendants jointly combine the Plaintiff with KRW 100,000,000, and with respect thereto, the period from March 1, 2017 to April 7, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2016, Filisung Construction Co., Ltd.: (a) drafted and issued a promissory note, the payment date of which is KRW 100 million at face value, February 28, 2017, and the place of payment of which is the Gwangju Bank (hereinafter “the Promissory note in this case”).

B. The Promissory Notes of this case was exempted from the duty to prepare a protest for non-payment, and each of them was endorsed and transferred in sequence to the Defendant, Changdong School (Co., Ltd.’s trade name before the modification), Defendant EFM Co., Ltd., Defendant B, Defendant C, and the Plaintiff.

C. After supplementing the issue date of the Promissory Notes as of February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff presented the said Promissory Notes at the place of payment within the lawful time limit for payment. However, payment was refused on February 28, 2017 on the grounds of non-transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 5: Defendant 3 who is deemed to have been admitted as a confession under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act: The fact that there is no dispute, the entries in subparagraphs 1-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the Defendants, who are the endorsers of the Promissory Notes, are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won and to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from March 1, 2017 to April 7, 2017, which is the last delivery date of the Promissory Notes, and at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. The above Defendant’s assertion and determination that the issue date of the Promissory Notes in this case was presented for payment without supplement, and thus, the Defendant lost its right to recourse against the above Defendant, who is an endorser. However, the Plaintiff supplemented the issue date of the Promissory Notes in February 28, 2017 and lawfully presented the payment. Accordingly, the above Defendant’s assertion is the same as seen earlier.