Of the part of the lower judgment on damages for delay, KRW 192,00,000 and KRW 40,000 for Plaintiff B.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The allegation that each of the instant promissory notes was forged in the grounds of appeal regarding the omission of judgment as to the forgery of each of the instant promissory notes and the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act is nothing more than an omission of the selection of evidence and the fact-finding, which belong to the lower court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and the allegation that omission of judgment as to the expressive representation under Article 126 of the Civil Act was based on the premise that D had no power to issue each of the instant promissory notes, and thus, it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground of appeal.

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and relevant legal principles as to the remainder of the grounds of appeal, excluding the portion of the lower judgment as to the delay of payment of the obligation of a promissory note, in light of the records, the lower court determined that the Defendant, the issuer of each of the Promissory Notes, is liable to pay the Plaintiff B, who is the holder of each of the Promissory Notes listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the lower judgment, the total face value of KRW 192,00,000,000, and damages for delay on each of the said notes, to the Plaintiff B, who is the holder of each of the Promissory Notes listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the lower judgment, is justifiable. In so determining, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the delay of the payment of the bill of exchange and Promissory Notes, the court below issued and delivered each of the Promissory Notes to the Plaintiff A via D, a representative, and the Plaintiff A was the addressee of the Plaintiff B.