1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or are acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 9, and part of the testimony of the court of first instance witness D, which are contrary to this, and there is no counter-proof.

On January 24, 2008, the Defendant issued one promissory note in the face value of KRW 1,000,000,000 on the date of payment, April 25, 2008, Busan Metropolitan City at the place of payment, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes 1”) and delivered to the Plaintiff.

B. On January 24, 2008, the Defendant issued one promissory note in the face value of KRW 2,200,000,000, the due date for payment, April 24, 2008, Busan Metropolitan City at the place of payment, and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) and the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff presented each of the Promissory Notes in this case on each payment date, but each of the Promissory Notes in this case was not paid due to the receipt of an accident due to the forgery or alteration.

On July 9, 2008, the defendant was decided to commence rehabilitation proceedings in Busan District Court 2008 Gohap3, and C was appointed as a custodian of the defendant.

After that, the Defendant promoted the sale of the company with capital increase by issuing new shares to a third party from the beginning of 2010 (the so-called M&A) and concluded this contract on July 13, 2010 with a view to selecting “Korea Public Works Machinery Co., Ltd. and Korea Regular Industry Co., Ltd.” as the priority negotiation subject, and concluded a memorandum of understanding on August 13, 2010, and concluded this contract on August 26, 2010 with a view to “acquisition of bonds with the debtor’s stocks on the premise of authorization of the modified rehabilitation plan.” On November 15, 2010, the Defendant was decided by the Busan District Court to terminate the rehabilitation procedure of the said rehabilitation case 2008 combined 3 occasions.

Accordingly, the defendant.