1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 128,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 18, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant issued an electronic bill number B with a face value of KRW 30 million, the issue date as of June 9, 2017, the due date as of September 8, 2017, the payment bank as an enterprise bank, and the payee as A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”).

B. On June 16, 2017, A: (a) divided the foregoing electronic bill into several parts; (b) endorsement on the part of KRW 128,000,000 for its face value (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”); and (c) the instant electronic bill was endorsed and delivered in sequence to the Plaintiff via C, in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Issuance and Distribution of Electronic Bills Act, according to the method prescribed by Article 7(3) of the aforesaid Act.

B. On September 8, 2017, the Plaintiff presented to a corporate bank, a payment bank, the maturity date, the payment of the instant electronic bill, but was refused on the ground of the non-performance of the contract.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the issuer of the instant electronic bill, is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 18, 2017, the day following the delivery date of the copy of the instant bill, to the day of full payment, to the Plaintiff, the final holder of the instant electronic bill, as calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the instant bill, as sought by the Plaintiff.

3. The defendant's assertion pointing out that the defendant issued the electronic bill of this case due to the fraud or coercion of D and C, which is the representative director of A, the endorser, etc., and thus, the plaintiff cannot pay the amount of the bill of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion itself is merely a personal defense that there is a defect in the defendant's expression of intent, such as fraud and coercion, and thus, in principle, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is the other party to the bill act, and Supreme Court Decision 16 May 16, 1997.