1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff sold interest to C (hereinafter “C”) around 2005, and C’s representative director D issued and delivered to the Plaintiff each of the promissory notes (hereinafter “each of the promissory notes of this case”) dated July 28, 2005, the face value of which was KRW 70,000,000, and the due date of which was January 10, 2006, the promissory notes, the face value of which was KRW 35,000,000, the due date of which was September 28, 2005, and the due date of which was October 31, 2006, the face value of which was KRW 30,00,000,000, and the due date of which was February 28, 2006 (hereinafter “each of the promissory notes of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff, on the condition that each of the Promissory Notes in this case is discounted by the Defendant, endorsed and transferred each of the Promissory Notes in this case to the Defendant, and received a discount from the Defendant.

C. Since then, when each of the Promissory Notes in this case was rejected as non-transaction, the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to return the discounted discount amount.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with interest equivalent to KRW 83,925,000 over 12 times during the period from December 15, 2005 to April 26, 2006, instead of returning the discounted discount amount, and recovered each of the Promissory Notes from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including each number), witness D's testimony, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) On May 19, 2006, the plaintiff met D with the defendant on May 19, 2006 at China. At this place D in order to compensate for the plaintiff's damage caused by the default of each of the Promissory Notes in the defendant's warehouse, 5,000 Habact amounting to KRW 115,00,000 and 600 Mabact amounting to KRW 39,00,000 (hereinafter "Habactors and Boschactors").

B. The Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, and the Defendant, “I would have so known.”

As above, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff at the time of Lexpact and Bosch Rexroth, and thus, the Defendant shall be the Plaintiff.