1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,00,000 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from November 1, 2015 to March 29, 2016; and (b) March 30, 2016.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the defendant issued and delivered a promissory note B at the place of payment on June 12, 2015 (hereinafter "the Promissory note in this case") at the time when the payment was made on October 31, 2015 at the place of payment, and the delivery of the Promissory Notes B at the time when the payment was made on June 31, 2015. The receiver of the said Promissory Notes transferred the Promissory Note in this case to the KOTT. The receiver of the said Promissory Note in this case. The KOTTT transferred by endorsement and transfer the Promissory Notes in this case to the plaintiff. The plaintiff presented the payment proposal to the defendant at the place of payment at the date of the above payment, but the defendant refused payment on the ground of termination of the underlying relationship with the issuer of the Promissory Notes in this case, and the plaintiff currently holds the Promissory Notes in this case.

According to the above facts, the Defendant, who is the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 40,000,000 per annum from November 1, 2015 to March 29, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the Promissory Notes, and 6% per annum from the next day to the day of the delivery of the copy of the Promissory Notes, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion that although the defendant issued and delivered the Promissory Notes in order to guarantee the payment of the price of the goods, the contract was terminated for the supply of the goods to the party concerned, and the plaintiff acquired the Promissory Notes with the knowledge of the deficiency in the relationship with such cause, the plaintiff's claim for

However, even if the causal relationship between the defendant and the credit publishing company ceased to exist, there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case with the knowledge thereof.