1. The Defendants jointly combine the Plaintiff with KRW 100,000,000 and 6% per annum from January 24, 2016 to April 7, 2016.

1. Claim against the Defendant SBS system

(a) Indication of claims: It is as shown in the attached Form;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against the defendant AMFD

A. On July 24, 2015, Thai Co., Ltd. issued each of the bills listed below (hereinafter “each of the bills of this case”) in the separate sheet with respect to Defendant AMFD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant bills”).

On August 31, 2015, Defendant AMF, Inc., exempted Defendant EFF from the duty to prepare a protest for refusal to pay to Defendant EFF system, and endorsed and transferred each of the instant bills to the Plaintiff on the same day. Defendant EFF system endorsed and transferred each of the instant bills to the Plaintiff on the same day.

The Plaintiff, as the final holder of each of the instant notes, proposed payment within the due date for each of the instant notes, but was denied on the ground of non-transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 (including provisional number), purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, Defendant AMF, the endorser of each of the instant bills, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the final holder, the total sum of KRW 100,000,000 for each of the instant bills, as well as 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from January 24, 2016 to April 7, 2016, the day following the date of payment, which is the day of delivery of a duplicate of the instant bills, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

As to this, Defendant AMF, Inc., argued to the effect that it cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it endorsed and transferred it to the Defendant SBF system for the purpose of obtaining financing at a discount of each of the instant bills, but the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be rejected solely for such reason. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .