1. Defendant A’s KRW 100,000,000 as well as 6% per annum from March 5, 2016 to July 5, 2016, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. ABC issued to Defendant B a promissory note with the face value of KRW 100 million and the due date of payment, March 4, 2016, and the payment place NongHy-dong branch.

B. Defendant B delivered the said promissory note to Defendant A after endorsement, and Defendant A delivered the said promissory note to the Plaintiff around November 23, 2015.

C. Although the Plaintiff proposed the payment of the said Promissory Notes, it was rejected on the ground of non-transaction.

[Reasons for Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute over Defendant A (Defendant A), part of the evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings (Defendant B)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant A, Defendant A is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million as the endorser of the said Promissory Notes, as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from March 5, 2016 to July 5, 2016, the delivery date of the copy of the Promissory Notes from March 5, 2016, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is seeking the payment of the above promissory note amount against the Defendants, who are the endorsers of the above promissory note. Defendant B asserts that, based on the specificity of the act of promissory note, the Plaintiff was paid the amount in excess of the above promissory note amount, separate from the underlying relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant A. (A.). (A) The Unmanned Promissory Notes Act provides that the act of a promissory note cannot be asserted against a person, other than a direct transaction, as a human defense that can be asserted only between the direct transaction parties, and the former part of Article 77(1)1 and the former part of Article 17. (2). In this case, in order to secure the avoid payment and circulation of a promissory note, the Plaintiff declared that the act of a promissory note is not affected by the revocation of the non-existence of the cause.