1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. On September 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a discount agreement with the Seocho-si, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cheongcheon-do”) on the issuance of a promissory note from a clean system and the payment of the discount of the promissory note (hereinafter “instant discount agreement”) to a person designated by the clean system.

On September 3, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note in the form of an electronic bill (hereinafter referred to as “instant promissory note”) from the Clean System, as indicated below, in accordance with the discount agreement of the Promissory Notes, and the same month as the designation of the Clean System, depending on the designation of the Clean System.

5. The remitter remitted the amount of KRW 26,973,00, which is the discount of the said Promissory Notes, to the Defendant’s financial account, and indicated that the remitter was “Cheong-gu,” respectively.

On November 27, 2014, Plaintiff 29,904,000 on September 3, 2014, the issue date of the bill number issued by the issuer was the payee’s face value C Clean C, and the bill of this case was refused to be paid on November 27, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, 9, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is the actual addressee of the Promissory Notes, and thus, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the amount of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff as the obligor.

However, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 15 (including a serial number, if any) is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is the addressee of the Promissory Notes in this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in light of the text of the Promissory Notes in this case, the addressee is the plaintiff and the defendant does not constitute the obligor of the Promissory Notes since there is no indication as to the defendant

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. The plaintiff's claim 1 based on the seller's warranty liability is as follows: ① The defendant pays the breeding cost to the clean system.