1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 5, 2015, non-dives Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-dives”) issued one promissory note to the Defendant, at the face value of KRW 70,000,000, and the due date of April 9, 2015. The place of payment, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the Non-dives branch of the National Bank, the Non-dives branch, and the Defendant.

B. After the Defendant endorsed on the Promissory Notes, its face value was changed from “70,000,000 won” to “100,000,000 won”, the date of issuance was changed to “4.15, 2015,” and the date of payment was “ October 30, 2015,” and the said Promissory Notes is currently owned by the Plaintiff.

The first endorsement of the above bill is an endorsement made in the name of the defendant in the form of the second and third endorsement, and the second and third endorsement has been cancelled when it became an endorsement in the name of the Sung Steel Co., Ltd. and the gold industry. In the form of the fourth endorsement, the second and third endorsement made an endorsement in the name of the plaintiff in the form of Bosung Metal Co., Ltd. and in the form of the fifth endorsement.

(hereinafter referred to as the above changed bill of exchange (hereinafter referred to as “instant bill”) C.

On October 30, 2015, when the Plaintiff was holding the bill of this case with endorsement and transfer from Bosung Metal Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff offered a payment proposal at the Seocheon-dong Branch of National Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., the payment date of which was changed, but was refused.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, Eul evidence 2 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the bill of this case was presented to the last holder of the bill of this case within the payment date, but the payment was refused. The defendant, who is the endorser of the bill of this case, is obligated to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the plaintiff according to the duty of recourse as the endorser.

In regard to this, the Defendant is an endorser before the alteration of the face value and payment date of the Promissory Notes, and thus, the Defendant did not bear the obligation of recourse under the language and text after the alteration of the Promissory Notes, and there was a legitimate presentation of payment in accordance with the previous language and text.