1. The defendant shall pay 35,702,700 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from January 5, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 13, 2015, the Defendant issued to A (the representative B; hereinafter referred to as “A”) an electronic bill with a face value of KRW 200,000,000 at face value, and the payment date on December 15, 2015, and an electronic bill with a company bank with a place of payment (hereinafter referred to as “instant electronic bill”).

B. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff received endorsement from A as to KRW 35,702,700 of the outstanding amount, which was not paid, as to the instant electronic bill, as KRW 35,702,70 of the outstanding amount, even though it was supplied with contact materials to A by July 31, 2015.

C. On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal for the instant electronic bill, but was denied on the ground of the acceptance of the said electronic bill.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is a legitimate holder who received endorsement of KRW 35,702,700 among the electronic bills of this case issued by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant, as the issuer of the electronic bill of this case, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 5, 2016 to the date of complete payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, with respect to KRW 35,702,700, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserted that the defendant issued and delivered the electronic bill of this case at the end of C's false statement that he would give discount to the electronic bill of this case, but around that time, A had been punished by the substance and the plaintiff was aware of the above circumstances, and therefore, the defendant did not have the obligation to pay the amount of the electronic bill of this case to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the electronic bill of this case was obtained by deception falls under the personal defense stipulated in Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, and even if the Defendant had obtained by deception the electronic bill of this case, the Plaintiff, the holder of the bill, thereby undermining the Defendant, the obligor of the bill.