1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 per annum from November 15, 201 to August 30, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 26, 2011, the Defendant’s representative director C (e.g., taking office on April 14, 201, resignation on February 21, 201) issued, under the Defendant’s name, one promissory note note note No. 1 (hereinafter “instant note”) as of November 15, 201, which is the date of payment, (i) KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. D, on October 27, 201, exempted the Plaintiff from the obligation to make up a protest for non-payment, and became the final holder of the instant bill by endorsement and assignment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the fact that the Defendant’s duty to pay the bill was recognized, the Defendant, the issuer of the bill of this case, is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 200 million and the legal interest under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act to the Plaintiff, the final holder of the bill of this case.

(B) The preliminary claim for damages, etc. due to the tort is not judged separately, as long as the plaintiff's primary claim is accepted.

A) On February 2010, the Defendant transferred all of the Defendant’s shares to F Co., Ltd., the representative director E, and E did not engage in business activities but required only the Defendant’s business rights. Therefore, the Defendant borrowed only the name to F Co., Ltd. and registered it as the representative director of the Defendant.

Therefore, C does not have any reason to issue a bill under the name of the defendant, and the seal imprint affixed thereto is not the defendant's seal imprint, and the bill of this case is forged, and the defendant is not liable to pay it.

B. In light of the evidence revealed earlier, C, which was the representative director of the defendant, signed the bill of this case and affixed the seal of the defendant on his own will, and it is recognized that C used other seals than the seal of the defendant used by G, the former representative director, and C.