1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 10, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant issued an electronic bill to Pungjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Pungjin”) with a face value of KRW 98,00,000 at face value, the national bank interest rate at the place of payment, and the due date on October 20, 2016 so that it can be endorsed in installments.

B. On July 6, 2016, Pungjin delivered to the Plaintiff an endorsement of KRW 23,000,000 of the said electronic bill.

C. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant received an accident report regarding the foregoing electronic bill.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, who is the issuer of the foregoing electronic bill, shall pay to the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the above electronic bill, 23,000,000 won of the bill and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from September 10, 2016 to the day of full payment, on the day following the day when the copy of the bill of this case, which can be seen as the date of presentment for payment of the above electronic bill, was served on

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant agreed to receive a fair and discounted payment, and issued and delivered the electronic bill, and there is no actual relationship between the windman and the windman, and the Plaintiff also received endorsement of the electronic bill with the knowledge of these circumstances. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless. The ground as alleged by the Defendant is not a direct counter-party to the act of promissory notes but a personal defense in relation to the Plaintiff, and thus, in order to oppose the Plaintiff for the above reason, it shall be proved that the Plaintiff acquired the electronic bill with the intent to harm the Defendant, knowing the above circumstances, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Defendant’s claim is without merit. In addition, the Defendant received a endorsement for the purpose of discount of the bill, even though the Plaintiff did not have any substantive transaction relationship with the windman.