1. Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff KRW 210,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C and the defendant B

1. Basic facts: (a) on August 16, 2013, Defendant B issued a promissory note (E; hereinafter “instant promissory note”) stating “The face value amount of KRW 210,000,000,000, and the date of issuance August 16, 2013; and (b) the issuer D Company B and the place of payment as “New Bank Co., Ltd.” (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

Defendant C endorsed to the Promissory Notes on the same day.

② On the back of the Promissory Notes, the protest is written in the same word. Defendant C is the representative director G of the F Company, Defendant B is the representative director G of the F Company, Defendant B is the Defendant, Defendant B is the Defendant, Defendant H is the Defendant, and H is the Plaintiff’s successive endorsement and transfer of the Promissory Notes. At present, the Plaintiff holds the Promissory Notes.

③ On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff presented the Promissory Notes in this case to the Francheon-dong Branch of a new bank, Inc., the place of payment, and the payment was refused.

【Ground for Recognition: Fact that there is no dispute or there is no clear dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including all of the branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Defendant B, the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case, is obligated to pay KRW 210,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the final holder.

[Judgment by Service of Public Notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act)]

B. On August 11, 2016, the date when payment was presented, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay with respect to KRW 210,000,000.

As one of the requirements for a bill, the receiver, and the receiver, as the bill, cannot be deemed as having been completed and thus, the right on the bill cannot be duly established. Thus, even if payment is made by such an in-depth bill, it cannot be omitted for the drawer to delay of payment due to the lack of legal validity of the presentation for payment.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da28313, Mar. 10, 1992). The fact that the Promissory Notes in this case were issued and delivered in blank as seen earlier, is as follows, and the Plaintiff also up to the date of closing argument in this Court.