1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 150,00,000 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 6% per annum from May 31, 2019 to September 4, 2019; and (b) September 5, 2019 for the Plaintiff.

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the following facts: (a) the Defendant issued an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) with the face value of KRW 150,000,000 at face value and the due date for payment, and the electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) to the Plaintiff on February 21, 2019; (b) the Plaintiff discounted the instant bill to the Plaintiff on May 31, 2019; and (c) the Plaintiff could be recognized that the Plaintiff was refused to pay the bill as an accident report even after the Plaintiff presented payment of the bill on May 31, 2019, according to the above recognized facts.

B. As to this, the Defendant ordered 'the prefabricated' to 'C' and delivered the bill of this case to 'the construction cost'. At that time, the Defendant agreed from C to return the bill or cancel the issuance of the bill in case the facility work and the trial operation are not completed before the due date of the bill delivery. Since C failed to perform the above agreement, the Defendant is not obliged to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff.

“As alleged to the purport, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the Defendant, and even if there was an agreement between the Defendant and C as above.

However, this cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the bill, due to a defense arising from personal relations that can only be asserted between the direct transaction parties of the bill.

As such, (Article 4 of the Issuance and Distribution of Electronic Bills Act, Articles 77 and 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act), the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendant’s KRW 150,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the date on which the bill was due and presented to the Plaintiff.