1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 90,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 28, 2018 to the date of complete payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C issued, June 10, 200, the face value of KRW 90,000,000 at face value, September 10, 2007, the date of payment, and September 10, 2007, respectively, the place of issue and the place of payment (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes”). The Defendant endorsed the Promissory Notes and transferred it to the Plaintiff.

B. When the Plaintiff presented the bill of this case at the date of payment but the refusal of payment was made, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for the payment order seeking the payment of the bill amounting to KRW 90,000,000 and the delay damages.

On March 25, 2008, the original copy of the above payment order was served on the defendant, and it became final and conclusive on April 9, 2008 because the defendant did not raise any objection.

C. The Plaintiff applied for a payment order on March 8, 2018 for the extension of the statute of limitations.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from April 28, 2018 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that since the defendant endorsed the bill of this case to the effect that C would repay to the plaintiff in order to offset the claim to be paid by C, the defendant does not have any reason to pay the bill of this case.

A bill must be dealt with separately from the underlying relationship of the acceptance of a bill as an unmanned act, and since a bill represents rights to a certain bill regardless of the underlying relationship, the holder of the bill can exercise rights to the bill solely on the fact that he/she is the holder, and does not have to prove that he/she has any real interests.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da36407 Decided September 20, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 96Da52649 Decided July 25, 1997, etc.). Accordingly, the same applies.