1. The Defendant’s KRW 200,000,000 per annum from October 24, 2013 to November 20, 2013, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is holding an electronic bill (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”) that was transferred from the issuer, the Defendant, the payee Co., Ltd., the date of issuance, July 11, 2013, October 24, 2013 due date, and at the rate of 200 million won (hereinafter “instant electronic bill”).

B. The details of endorsement of the electronic bill of this case are series of endorsements Co., Ltd., Ltd., future distribution development, C Co., Ltd. and B.

C. The Plaintiff presented a payment proposal of the instant electronic bill within the maturity date of the instant electronic bill, but was refused due to the shortage of deposits.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant, the issuer of the electronic bill of this case, is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the holder of the electronic bill of this case, interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 200 million won per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from October 24, 2013 to November 20, 2013, the delivery date of the copy of the bill of this case, and 6% 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.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff, the chairperson D, and the representative director B of the corporation Eul conspired to discount the electronic bill of this case and acquired the electronic bill of this case from future distribution development of the corporation, and that the defendant did not have any obligation to pay the electronic bill of this case to the plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above argument is without merit.

In addition, in light of the principle of the independence of the bill obligations and the provisions of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, the latter’s defense should be exceptionally acknowledged only when it does not impair the circulation of the bill, and in light of the specificity of the bill act, the Defendant may oppose the Plaintiff.