1. The defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.

2. The expenses of the appeal shall be applied for the return of the provisional payment.

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence

From the second to the third half of the second judgment of the first instance, "On the other hand, the second to the third shall be liable to pay damages for delay for delay on the first day of the second to the second day" as follows.

The Plaintiff sought payment of legal interest under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from January 31, 2016, which is the day following the maturity date of the Promissory Notes. However, the statutory interest rate added from the maturity date of the Promissory Notes is premised on the lawful presentation of payment. However, there is no assertion as to the Plaintiff’s lawful presentation of payment within two transaction days from the maturity date. Therefore, the Plaintiff recognizes only the damages for delay from April 5, 2017, which can be seen as the date of the presentation of payment of the Promissory Notes, as the third fifth fifth of the judgment of the first instance, “Commercial Act” is deemed to be “the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act.”

2. Conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal and the request for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.