1. As to KRW 117,483,135 among the Plaintiff and KRW 43,50,348 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,974,249.

1. On July 15, 2016, the primary fact-finding corporation issued three copies of the electronic bill as indicated in the separate sheet, including the issuance of one electronic bill which causes a par value 43,50,348 to the Defendant. The Defendant assigned three copies of the aforesaid electronic bill to the Plaintiff after endorsement.

In accordance with the Act on Issuance and Distribution of Electronic Bills, the Plaintiff automatically presented three electronic bills for payment prior to the expiration date of the electronic bill. However, the electronic bill as set forth in Paragraph (1) of the attached Table was treated as non-payment of all three electronic bills on October 31, 2016, including non-payment refusal as a cause for non-payment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, who is an endorser of three electronic bills, has the obligation to pay to the Plaintiff, who is the last holder of the said electronic bill the total par value of KRW 117,483,135 and the total face value of KRW 43,50,348 as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, the following day after the maturity date for the bill No. 36,974,249 as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, the face value of KRW 36,958,538 as stated in the separate sheet No. 3, the following day after the maturity date for the bill No. 36,958,538 as to the bill face value of KRW 6,50 per annum from January 1, 2017 to January 5, 2017, each of the following day after the maturity date for the bill of this case, to pay damages for delay by 15% per annum.

3. On the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant's above endorsement falls under "humd delegation of collection" and is not liable for warranty, and the plaintiff's claim for payment of the amount of the bill of this case to the defendant cannot be permitted since it violates the principle of gold-competing, in light of the underlying relationship, and thus, it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim, but Eul's evidence 1 through 4.