1. The Defendants jointly combine with the Plaintiff KRW 53 million and with respect thereto, 6% per annum from August 6, 2017 to March 20, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 5, 2017, Defendant B B B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) issued one electronic bill (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) at the face value of KRW 53 million, the due date of payment, August 5, 2017, and the payee B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).

B. On April 12, 2017, Defendant B exempted Defendant APS Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PPS Korea”), Defendant APS Korea, on April 13, 2017, and Defendant APS Korea exempted the Plaintiff from the preparation of each of the certificates of non-payment, and delivered each of the instant electronic bills after endorsement.

C. On August 5, 2017, the date for payment, the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal for the instant electronic bill, but was rejected on August 7, 2017 on the ground of default on payment due to non-transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, barring special circumstances, Defendant B, the issuer of the electronic bill of this case, and Defendant B, the endorser of the electronic bill of this case, and SPS Korea, are jointly obligated to pay jointly the Plaintiff, the final holder of the electronic bill of this case, the amount of KRW 53 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act until March 20, 2018, as the Plaintiff seeks, from August 6, 2017, the day following the date when the payment was presented, to the Plaintiff, which is the last holder of the electronic bill of this case.

3. As to the Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserts that the instant electronic bill was endorsed while in office of the former representative director C, and the present representative director was unaware of the conditions before and after the endorsement, and therefore, Defendant B did not be liable to pay the instant bill to the Plaintiff.

However, the representative director of the company was replaced.

The identity of the company is also the same.