1. The Defendants jointly construct the Plaintiff’s KRW 50 million and the Plaintiff’s construction from March 12, 2015.

1. If there is no dispute between the parties to the determination as to the cause of the claim, or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the bill of this case is referred to as the "bill of this case by the defendant KD Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "KD Construction") at par value of 50,000,000 on December 12, 2014, the due date of March 11, 2015; 242-15, 1242-15, 1242-15, 200, 5 stories of the non-existent building at issue; 5 stories of the KD Construction Co., Ltd. at issue; 5 stories of the payment bank; the

D) The fact that the bill was issued, D is the first endorsement column of the bill of this case; Defendant A is the second endorsement column of the bill of this case; Defendant B is the United ethyl Co., Ltd. (former Industrial Technology Co., Ltd., Ltd., prior to the modification; hereinafter referred to as United ethyl Industries).

3) The Defendant’s Pension C&C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Pension C&C”) in the column for the third endorsement of the instant bill.

(1) As to the column for the fourth endorsement of the Promissory Notes, Defendant B is in the column for the fifth endorsement of the Promissory Notes; Defendant C is in the column for the sixth endorsement of the Promissory Notes; Defendant B is in the column for the seventh endorsement of the Promissory Notes; Defendant C is in the column for the eighth endorsement of the Promissory Notes; Defendant P&C is in the column for the eighth endorsement of the Promissory Notes; Defendant P&C is in the column for the nine endorsement of the Promissory Notes; and Defendant P&C is in the form of the

The Plaintiff’s endorsement was made in the form of endorsement 10 of the Promissory Notes, the Plaintiff’s presentation of payment within the time limit for presentment for the payment of the Promissory Notes was rejected due to default, and the Plaintiff’s possession of the Promissory Notes at present.

According to the above facts, the bill of this case was lawfully issued, and it is evident that the form of endorsement from the drawee of the bill to the plaintiff who is the holder of the bill is continuous, and the plaintiff is presumed to be a lawful holder of the bill of this case. Thus, the defendants, the endorser of the bill, are presumed to be the lawful holder of the bill of this case, barring any special circumstance. The defendants, the endorser of the bill of this case, as the performance of the duty of recourse, as well as the bill of this case from March 12, 2015 to the plaintiff