1. The Plaintiff:

A. The Defendant Marine Home Co., Ltd. shall pay KRW 77,00,000 as well as its full payment from November 3, 2016.

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant Seabaum Co., Ltd.

(a)for the reasons for the attachment to the indication of the claim;

B. Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment to recommend confession

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The facts under the recognition below do not conflict between the parties, or recognize Gap 1 through 3 (at the third date for pleading, however, there is no evidence to prove that the recognition of the fact of endorsement was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, even though the defendant acknowledged the fact of endorsement on each promissory note, the fact of endorsement was revoked on the third date for pleading), the statements in 4, 5, and 9, and the response to the order for submission added to the whole pleadings.

(1) On December 2, 2015, UNC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “NC”) issued one promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 27,00,000,000 at face value, and the due date of which is March 9, 2016 (hereinafter “first Promissory note”), one promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 25,00,000,000 on December 17, 2015, the due date of which is March 20, 2016 (hereinafter “second Promissory Notes”), one promissory note, the face value of which is KRW 25,00,000,000 on November 30, 2015, and the due date of which is March 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) and the Promissory Notes, both of which are issued, respectively, (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”).

(2) In the instant bill, Defendant B and the Second Endorsement were the first endorsers, and the Plaintiff endorsed the instant bill as the third endorseors, and the Plaintiff endorsed the instant bill as the third endorseors. The instant bill was endorsed by the Nonindicted Co., Ltd. as the fourth Endorsement (hereinafter “first Endorsement”). On February 11, 2016, the land was subject to suspension of current account transactions as a result of the refusal of payment of bills, checks, etc.

(4) Although the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal on March 18, 2016 as a holder of bills Nos. 1 and 2, the first bill passed after the payment proposal period, and the second bill was rejected as a non-transaction. The second bill was issued as a holder of bills No. 3 and the third bill was presented for payment proposal on March 2, 2016, but the payment was refused as a non-transaction.