1. Defendant E, H, and I jointly combine with the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000,000 on March 13, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2015, J issued an electronic bill, the face value of which is KRW 300 million, and the due date of which is March 12, 2016 (hereinafter “instant bill”).

B. The Promissory Notes of this case was endorsed and transferred in sequence to K Co., Ltd., Ltd., Defendant H and I through D, E, and G with the exemption from the duty to prepare a protest for non-payment.

On the other hand, G has changed its name to F.

C. The Plaintiff, as the final holder of the instant bill, presented a payment proposal at the place of payment within the time limit for presentment for payment, but was refused due to default on payment due to non-transaction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C and D seeking the payment of the amount of the bill to the said Defendants, the endorser of the instant bill, the said Defendants asserted that the said Defendants could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since they made a unsecured endorsement on the instant bill.

According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that Defendant C and D have transferred the bill of this case with no collateral endorsement in sequence. Thus, the above Defendants are not only the direct endorsement but also the persons to whom they are subsequently endorsed.

(Article 15(1) of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act. Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is reasonable, and the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants is without merit under the premise that the above defendants are liable to compensate for the payment of the bill as an endorser

B. According to the facts of the recognition of Defendant E, H, and I’s claim 1, the Defendants, who are the endorsers of the Promissory Notes, jointly with the Plaintiff, who is the holder of the Promissory Notes, are dismissed, as from March 13, 2016, which is the day following the date on which the payment was made. Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of damages for delay from March 12, 2016, which is the date on which the payment was made, is dismissed.

2. Duplicate of the complaint.