1. The Defendants jointly combine the Plaintiff with KRW 100 million and with respect thereto, 6% per annum from April 5, 2016 to July 11, 2017.

1. Establishment of obligation to pay bills of exchange;

A. On November 30, 2015, Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “stock company, etc.”) issued and delivered electronic bills with the face value of KRW 54 billion on the non-party F and the face value of April 5, 2016, and the instant bills were transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff via Defendant B, C and G, Defendant D, and E. The face value of the bills divided upon the acceptance was KRW 100 million.

On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff presented a proposal to pay the Promissory Notes, but was denied on the ground of non-transaction.

[Reasons for Recognition] Defendant A, B: Defendant C: Each entry in “A” or “B” or “B”, the purport of the entire pleadings, and the fact that there is no dispute.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant A, as the drawer, is liable to pay the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes, together with each endorser, the amount of KRW 100 million, and interest and delay damages after April 5, 2016, which is the due date.

2. Determination on Defendant D and E’s assertion

A. On February 1, 2016, when Defendant E entered into a bill discount agreement with the Plaintiff on February 1, 2016, Defendant E provided the bill of this case as a collateral, and the maturity date is later.

4. 7. According to the conclusion of a separate small and medium enterprise loan agreement with the Plaintiff, the instant bill was fully repaid.

B. Unless there is any evidence to prove that Defendant E requested the Plaintiff to deliver the instant bill or notified the electronic bill management agency of the payment of the amount of the bill, it cannot be readily concluded that the instant bill was repaid under a new small and medium enterprise loan agreement. It is reasonable to view that the instant bill still remains as a way to secure the payment of the claim under a new contract.

Therefore, the plaintiff can exercise his right to the bill of this case separately from his claim for the loan according to his choice.

3. Conclusion