1. The Defendants jointly joined the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and the Defendant Co., Ltd. from July 1, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 15, 2016, Defendant Bosto Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the Defendants’ name omitted) issued one electronic promissory note (e.g., bill number: 03-203-2015-0005764, hereinafter the “instant note”) on June 30, 2016, with a face value of KRW 40,000,000 at face value, Defendant Bostoh, and Defendant Bostoh Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the “instant note”).

B. On February 15, 2016, Defendant Boh-young’s health was the first endorsement of Mexicoex Co., Ltd., Ltd. on the same day, and the Plaintiff is in possession of each of the instant bills endorsed to the Plaintiff as the third endorsement on the same day.

C. On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff presented a proposal for payment of the instant bill at the place of payment, which was due, but refused to pay.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, the issuer of the bill of this case is obligated to jointly pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bill of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from July 1, 2016 to January 19, 2017, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the bill of this case from July 1, 2016 to the date of payment proposal, to the Plaintiff who is the holder, jointly with the issuer of the bill of this case. Defendant Bo Young-gu is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. As to the claim of Defendant Bosto Ri, Defendant Bosto the purport that the instant bill was issued in order to secure the price of the goods for Defendant Bostopian health, but the said supply contract was terminated due to the nonperformance of Defendant Bostop’s health, and Defendant Bostop was not supplied with the goods due to the default of Mexico, and thus, Defendant Bostop did not have a duty to pay the instant bill to the Plaintiff.

However, as alleged by the defendant, the bill of this case is equivalent to the sum of the bill of this case to the health of the defendant Bohovah, even if it is alleged by the defendant.