1. As to the Plaintiff, Defendant (Appointed Party) was KRW 104,000,000, and Defendant C was 20,000,000 and each of the above amounts.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 7, 2015, the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the appointed parties issued a promissory note of KRW 14 billion at each face value of KRW 1.4 million (Defendant) and KRW 20 million (Appointed Party) (hereinafter “each promissory note of this case”).

B. On April 6, 2016, the Plaintiff received each of the instant promissory notes from D.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant and the designated parties are liable to pay to the plaintiff each of the Promissory Notes in this case and its delay damages.

B. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have the due date for the payment of the bonds which were the cause of the issuance of each of the Promissory Notes in this case.

Although it is alleged to the effect that the notice of assignment of claims was not given, the grounds alleged as such do not constitute grounds for refusing the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the payment of the amount of the Promissory Notes received by transfer of each of the instant promissory Notes.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is with merit.