1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,656,200 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from May 1, 2015 to June 18, 2015, and June 19, 2015.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On December 17, 2014, the Defendant endorsed and transferred to D electronic bills (bill number C, face value 38,656,200, issue date on December 16, 2014; maturity date on April 30, 2015; maturity date on the national bank of the paying bank; and the Defendant) issued by the member construction industry corporation. D was endorsed and transferred to E on December 18, 2014; E was to F on December 22, 2014; F was endorsed and endorsed to the Plaintiff on April 8, 2015. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal at the payment bank on the expiration date of the said electronic bills, but was refusing payment due to legal restrictions (provisional seizure, seizure, preservation of property, and provisional disposition of payment suspension).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, as an endorser of the foregoing electronic bill, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the last holder of the electronic bill, 38,656,200 won of the above electronic bill and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from May 1, 2015 to June 18, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the bill of this case, from June 19, 2015, 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings before the Amendment, from June 19, 2015 to September 30, 2015, and from October 1, 2015 to the full payment date.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The assertion D and E did not actually pay the discounted price for each of the above electronic bills, and the Plaintiff also paid money to F or discounted the discounted price for the instant electronic bill, even though the Plaintiff was not a legitimate holder of the said electronic bill, it constitutes an endorsement and transfer of the said electronic bill for the instant lawsuit, and thus, it should be dismissed as it constitutes a litigation trust.

B. The Plaintiff is solely based on the circumstance that G paid the said electronic bill discount price to the Defendant on behalf of D, and that D gave a discount on several different promissory notes issued by the members construction industry corporation in addition to the said electronic bills.