1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,000,000 and its amount shall be 6% per annum from May 22, 2014 to November 20, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2006, the Defendant sold C and D the occupancy right to the commercial building in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-gu (hereinafter “instant occupancy right”) at the price of KRW 50 million.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant sales contract.” If the Defendant is unable to obtain the right to move into the instant sales contract, the Defendant issued a blank promissory note (hereinafter referred to as “instant blank note”) signed and sealed by the Defendant in the issuer column to secure the return of the sales price.

B. Since then, C sold the instant right to move into KRW 70 million to the Plaintiff and delivered the instant blank note to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff sold the instant occupancy right to F, but failed to proceed with the commercial building project, as the last holder of the instant blank bill, filled up “F”, “F”, “day 00 million won”, “date of issuance”, “Seoul City”, “Seoul City”, “F”, and “A” to the endorser column, and “A” in the column of endorsement,” as the last holder of the instant blank bill.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant Promissory Notes”) d. of the Promissory Notes written by the Plaintiff.

The original copy of the instant payment order accompanied by the Promissory Notes was served on May 21, 2014 to the Defendant.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including additional number), witness C and each testimony of Eul

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as the issuer of the Promissory Notes, is obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes in this case and damages for delay thereof to the Plaintiff, which is the final holder. (B) The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Promissory Notes in this case were issued for the Defendant’s guarantee of the obligation to return the conditional purchase price of the Promissory Notes in this case, as the Plaintiff, who is not authorized, satisfied the requirements of the Promissory Notes in this case. (B) The Promissory Notes in this case were issued for the Defendant’