1. The Defendants together with the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 49,50,000,00 and the Defendants’ share to Defendant B from October 22, 2018.

1. Each fact in the separate statement on the grounds of the recognition of the facts does not clearly dispute between the Plaintiff, Defendant C Co., Ltd., and F Co., Ltd., and it can be acknowledged that the whole purport of the pleadings was neglected between the Plaintiff, Defendant C Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff, Defendant D, and E.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of the claim, since a bill of exchange in the separate sheet (hereinafter “bill of exchange”) meets the requirements of the bill and continues endorsement, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C, D, E, and F, the issuer of the bill of exchange, jointly with the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the bill of exchange, is liable to pay 49,50,000,000 per annum of the bill of exchange to the Defendants from October 22, 2018, the due date of payment of the bill of exchange (for Defendant B, the date of delivery of a copy of each of the bill of exchange to the Defendants (for Defendant C, the date of November 9, 2018; for Defendant D, November 25, 2018; and for Defendant D, the due date after December 25, 2018; and for Defendant E, the due date for delay from December 15, 2018; and the due date for delay from May 18, 2018).

B. As to Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B’s in-house director G was only lent only in the name of the company, and specific contents of the issuance of a bill are well-known. However, the claim of this case is a claim for a bill of exchange against Defendant B, a corporation, and thus, the claim of the above company’s in-house director G does not interfere with the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. Defendant D’s assertion asserted that the instant bill was issued by Defendant E, but refused to receive it, and immediately returned it to C, but no one can be recognized.