1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,910,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from May 31, 2014 to September 19, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 2014, the Defendant issued a promissory note at the face value of KRW 60,910,000, and the due date of May 30, 2014, which became a place of payment, and issued to the members engineering of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Engineering”).

B. The members engineering endorsed to the Promissory Notes and delivered them to the Plaintiff.

C. On May 30, 2014, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal for the Promissory Notes to the place of payment, but was denied on the ground of the report of acceptance.

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

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,910,000 of the Promissory Notes and the damages for delay calculated at each rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day of the payment date of the Promissory Notes to the Defendant from May 31, 2014, which is the day following the date of payment of the Promissory Notes, until September 19, 2014.

B. As to the above, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the light engineering and the transfer-type aircraft, and issued and delivered the Promissory Notes in part of the price. However, the Defendant asserted that the Promissory Notes in this case did not have any obligation to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the Promissory Notes since it reported the acceptance of the Promissory Notes in this case as it did not deliver the goods.

On the other hand, the defendant's defense to the effect that there is no relationship between the act of the bill and the act of the bill constitutes a human defense, and Article 17 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act does not set up against the holder defenses arising from a previous relationship with the drawer or with the previous holder.

However, this shall not apply where the holder has acquired a bill with the knowledge that he would thereby prejudice the debtor.