1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from December 20, 2014 to January 30, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 18, 2014, the Defendant issued one promissory note at the face value of KRW 50,000,000 at face value, and on December 20, 2014 at the place of payment and the place of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”), and issued the instant promissory note to the same-sex stock company (hereinafter “the same-sex stock company”).

B. The same-sex sale made an endorsement on the Promissory Notes in the instant case and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

C. On December 22, 2014, the Plaintiff presented the instant promissory note to the payment place, but was refused on the ground of the accident report.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff legal interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 50,000,000 won per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from December 20, 2014, the maturity date of the Promissory Notes, to January 30, 2015, and 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. As to the Defendant’s assertion and determination, the Defendant asserted that, as to the Defendant’s assertion and determination, Korea Light Design Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) delivered the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff as an advance payment related to the Rotterdam Corporation concluded with the Defendant, the Nonparty Co., Ltd. did not carry out the Rotterdam Corporation, and accordingly, the Nonparty Co., Ltd. did not have a duty to pay the instant Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff until

On the other hand, the defendant's defense against the underlying relationship of the act of a bill constitutes human defense. The fact that the plaintiff did not complete the construction work under the interior contract by the non-party company, and the transfer of the Promissory Notes in this case.