1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from September 7, 2017 to April 23, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2017, the Defendant issued an electronic bill (bill number: D) with the payee C as a stock company.

B. C divided the aforesaid electronic bill received from the Defendant on June 12, 2017, and endorsed and transferred to the Plaintiff two copies of the divided electronic bill as follows (hereinafter “instant bill”).

(1) Bill number: The amount of endorsement 40,000,000 won: the date of issue on June 1, 2017: The due date: the due date: the bank: the receipt and receipt point of equity of an E bank (division 04): The due date of issue of KRW 40,000: the date of issue of KRW 40,000: June 1, 2017: the due date of maturity: the bank on September 6, 2017: the receipt point of equity of an E bank;

C. On September 6, 2017, the Plaintiff proposed payment of the instant bill to E Bank balance points via the Industrial Bank of Korea, but the E Bank refused payment.

The Plaintiff is the final holder of the Promissory Notes.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the final holder of the instant bill, a total of KRW 80,000,000,000 for the total amount of the Promissory Notes and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from September 7, 2017 to April 23, 2018, the delivery date of a copy of the instant bill, which is the date of maturity, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

B. The judgment of the defendant's assertion (1) The defendant asserted that the plaintiff cannot claim the payment of the amount of the bill of this case against the defendant since the plaintiff received endorsement and transfer of the bill of this case without any cause. However, the statement of Eul evidence 5 alone is insufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion. The defendant's assertion is without merit since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, evidence Nos. 2 and 12 are respectively.