1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 72,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from March 4, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and (b) October 1, 2015.

The Defendant issued Chapter 14 of Promissory Notes (hereinafter “each of the Promissory Notes”) as indicated in the details of the issuance of the Promissory Notes with the payee’s “C” and “Seoul” (hereinafter “C”), and each of the Promissory Notes was endorsed and transferred by the payee C, and the Plaintiff presented a payment proposal to the Plaintiff on the payment date of each of the Promissory Notes. However, there is no dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff 15% annual interest rate of 20% from March 4, 2015 to September 30, 2015, following the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes as requested by the Plaintiff as the payment date of each of the Promissory Notes, to the day on which the copy of the Promissory Notes was served until September 30, 2015, to the day on which the copy of the Promissory Notes was repaid (the Plaintiff had an obligation to pay 15% annual interest rate of 15% from the next day to the day on which the copy of the Promissory Notes was served).

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, on March 2014, C issued to C a promissory note of KRW 40,000,000 at par value, on condition that C collects each of the instant notes from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant subsequent notes”), and that C paid KRW 12,00,000 out of the said notes, the Plaintiff’s request cannot be complied with.

On the other hand, there is no evidence to prove that the subsequent bill of this case was issued under the conditions as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.