1. Defendant B and C shall each of the Plaintiff KRW 23,00,000 and 5% per annum from August 31, 1996 to July 15, 1997.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each of the statements in Gap evidence 1, 2-1, 2-1, 3, 4, 5-1, 6, 1, and 2-1, 6, 1, and 2-1, 5-1, 3, 4, 5-1, 5-1, and 5-1, 6, 3, and 5-1, 6, 1, and 2, can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings.

The Plaintiff contracted the new E-construction from Defendant B, issued five promissory notes and delivered them to Defendant B as a performance guarantee for the construction project.

The Plaintiff determined that the Plaintiff’s right to supplement the face value of the Promissory Notes with Defendant B is less than KRW 100,000,000 in total, and agreed to obtain the Plaintiff’s permission when Defendant B uses the Promissory Notes.

B. Defendant B entered the F Bill No. F (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) at the face value of KRW 23,00,000, and the date of occurrence on May 13, 1996, and the due date on August 30, 1996, the issue date and the place of payment, as the branch offices of the NAFF, and then delivered them to Defendant D.

Defendant D: (a) exempted Defendant D from the preparation of each payment refusal certificate to H; and (b) endorsed and transferred the instant bill to H.

C. H filed the instant bill at the place of payment on August 30, 1996, which was the due date, but the payment was refused on the ground that it was an altered bill.

On August 196, Defendant B drafted a letter that all civil and criminal responsibilities arising from the Promissory Notes of this case will be held liable to Defendant B, as it is against Defendant B.

On August 7, 1996, Defendant C also drawn up a letter of performance that he will be responsible for the occurrence of the problem, such as the Promissory Notes.

E. On June 12, 1996, Defendant D received KRW 23,000,000 with respect to the bill of this case from the Plaintiff and suffered damage by personal use.