1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) issued and delivered two promissory notes (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) to the Defendant, the representative director of the Nonparty Company, as indicated in the following table. On the same day, the Defendant endorsement and deliver each of the said notes to the Plaintiff, and currently holds each of the said notes by the Plaintiff.

On February 12, 1998, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the addressee of the place of issue on February 50, 1998,000,000 on July 30, 1998, the date of issue of the No. 50,000,000,000 on February 50, 21998 in the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on February 12, 21998.

B. The Plaintiff presented a payment proposal on the date of payment of each of the Promissory Notes in this case, but rejected payment.

C. At present, the addressee of each of the Promissory Notes in this case is not supplemented.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant, as an endorser, is obligated to pay the sum of KRW 100 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff, which is the final reference of each of the Promissory Notes in this case.

B. In order for the holder of a promissory note to exercise his right of recourse against the endorser, it is required that the holder of the promissory note, in order to exercise his right of recourse, make a lawful presentation of payment by a promissory note stating the legal particulars as stipulated in Article 75 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, but refuses to make payment. The presentment of payment by a promissory note stating some of the above mentioned items, shall not be effective as a lawful presentation of payment unless the relief is made under

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da66317, Nov. 28, 2013; 91Da42579, Feb. 28, 1992; 93Da27765, Nov. 23, 1993). According to the foregoing legal principles, the Plaintiff’s payment of each of the instant promissory notes at the time when the Plaintiff presented the payment system.