1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B, who is the representative director of A (hereinafter “A”) of a stock company, transferred the promissory note (number C; hereinafter “instant promissory note”) issued by the Plaintiff on January 27, 2014, the date of issue of February 12, 2014, the par value of KRW 300 million, and the date of payment, May 27, 2014, to the Defendant, and received KRW 288,863,151 under the name of the stock company A as the loan.

B. The Defendant, as the final holder of the Promissory Notes of this case, presented the payment at the place of payment on May 27, 2014, the maturity of which was due, but was refused to pay due to the Plaintiff’s report of forgery or alteration.

C. Accordingly, on June 2, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the Promissory Notes 2014da36909, Incheon District Court. On June 12, 2014, the Defendant received a provisional attachment order on the instant Promissory Notes 2,207 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff, in order to preserve the claim for the said Promissory Notes under the Changwon District Court’s Tong District Court’s Tong-gu Branch Branch Decision 2014Kadan491, Jun. 12, 2014, and completed the registration.

The plaintiff was in arrears on June 24, 2014.

E. On August 28, 2014, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff and the instant promissory note debt amount to be adjusted by selling remaining assets, such as the above factory site, through consultation with the creditors, and was paid KRW 120,00,000 under the pretext of agreement by the Plaintiff. In addition, the provisional attachment execution on the above factory site was rescinded, and the said bill payment lawsuit was withdrawn with the Plaintiff’s consent on November 7, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5 through 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On January 28, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant promissory note was issued to E and F, because the short-term fund of the Gu administration was urgently needed. As such, the Plaintiff requested discount.

E and F agree to immediately recover and return to the Plaintiff when the bill of exchange is not accepted, and they refuse the Plaintiff’s request for return of the bill.