The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance is in the judgment.

1. The Plaintiff’s grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are deemed legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance

Except for the addition of paragraphs 2 and 3 below, the reasoning of this court's judgment is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. The 6th instance judgment of the first instance court is only the first instance judgment, and the following is added thereto:

In addition, the obligor can deliver a bill issued by a third party “for payment of the obligation” or “for security” under the cause relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da25060, Nov. 8, 1996). Thus, even if one of the issuers of promissory notes held by the Plaintiff is Defendant B, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant B is the obligor of the obligation under the cause relationship.

Meanwhile, in cases where a promissory note with a blank maturity is issued, the statute of limitations for the right to fill the blank note issued with a blank maturity shall continue from the time when it is legally possible to exercise the right on the promissory note in light of the underlying relationship for the issuance of the note, and in view of Articles 77(1)8, 70(1), and 78(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the statute of limitations for the right to fill the blank note issued with a blank maturity shall continue to run from the time when it is legally possible to exercise the right on the blank note, and the statute of limitations for the right to fill the blank note issued with a blank maturity shall expire if it is not exercised for three years from the date of maturity,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Da16214 Decided May 30, 2003). The due date for the repayment of the obligation which caused the said Promissory Notes (hereinafter “The obligation”) was October 17, 2014, and thus, the right to supplement the blank was exercised from the said date (Evidence A5 and 10).

However, as of the date of closing argument in the appeal of this case.