1. The Defendants jointly combine with the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000, and with respect thereto, the period from September 18, 2014 to November 30, 2014.

Defendant Postal Tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Postal Tech”) issued an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) with the maturity of June 16, 2004, the issue date of which is KRW 60,000,000,000 in electronic bill number C, the amount of which is KRW 60,000,000 in the face value of the Bank, the Bank of Korea KHro Central Deposit (hereinafter “the Bank of Korea”), the maturity of which is September 17, 2014; Defendant Uiito Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Uito”); and Defendant B endorsed each of the instant bills; and the fact that the Plaintiff requested payment upon receipt of the instant bill at maturity, but the payment was refused may be recognized by taking into account the entire purport of pleadings as indicated in subparagraphs 1 and 2.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant U.S. C. is the issuer of the Promissory Notes. Defendant U.S. and Defendant B, together as an endorser of the Promissory Notes, are obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60 million and the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60 million from Sep. 18, 2014, which is the day following the due date, to Nov. 30, 2014, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes Act, 6% per annum as stipulated by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day

After receiving the Promissory Notes from Defendant Postal Tech, the Plaintiff issued the Promissory Notes to Dae Young Construction Co., Ltd. for the discount of the Promissory Notes. The Plaintiff cannot pay the amount of the Promissory Notes as it used the Promissory Notes at will without granting the discount. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion in the U.S. U.N. Port does not constitute a justifiable ground for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim for the amount of the Promissory Notes. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted for all reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.