1. Of the judgments of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in the judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 52,090,00.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that the "Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8" is used as the "Evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance (including the number number, if any)", and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as an issuer of a promissory note, has a duty to pay 52,090,000 won per annum under the Civil Act from November 20, 2013 to June 9, 2015, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case where the payment proposal had an effect on the Plaintiff, which was held as the issuer of the promissory note, with 52,090,000 won and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of full payment.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted the payment of damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from December 15, 201 to the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, and 20% per annum under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of the instant complaint. However, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the Plaintiff’s presentation of payment of a promissory note to the Defendant on the date of the instant payment, the Plaintiff cannot claim damages for delay from the due date until the delivery date of the instant complaint. If the Plaintiff’s assertion was accepted in the first instance court by disputing the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, even if the assertion was rejected in the appellate court, the assertion can be deemed to have a reasonable ground, and in such a case, the interest rate on damages for delay under the said provision cannot be applied until the date of the judgment of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da10603, Mar. 14,