1. The Defendants jointly do not pay to the Plaintiff KRW 49,50,000 as well as to the day of full payment from August 13, 2015 to the day of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2, 2014, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) issued the Promissory Notes E (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) with the face value of KRW 49.5 million, and the due date on February 26, 2015, at the point of payment and payment, at the point of foreign exchange bank error, and the issue date on December 2, 2014, at the place of issuance, and the issue date, Seoul and the payee C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”). Accordingly, Defendant C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant C”) and Defendant D repeatedly endorsed.

B. On February 26, 2015, the maturity of the Plaintiff, as the final holder of the said Promissory Notes, presented a payment proposal at the point of foreign exchange bank error, but was refused due to an accident.

On the other hand, on the back of the bill of this case, the statement that the bill of this case is exempted from drawing up the protest for non-payment.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. A. Since a person who issued and endorsed a judgment on the assertion of the cause of the claim is jointly liable to the holder, according to the above fact of recognition, the Defendants, as the issuer and endorser of the Promissory Notes, are jointly liable to pay to the Plaintiff 49.5 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from August 13, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the final delivery of the copy of the instant complaint, which is the final delivery of the instant complaint, to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendants’ assertion and judgment 1) Defendant B issued the instant bill and delivered it to Defendant C to be discounted through the branch, and Defendant C did not discount the instant bill after endorsement. The Defendants asserted that the instant bill was issued to F for the purpose of discount, and that, instead, F did not return the bill but did not return it to F, and that the Plaintiff, the holder of the bill, was presented to the due date. 2) Defendant C presented the discount of the instant bill to H, the representative of the Seocho Company, on December 2, 2015.