The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant issued to C a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the face value of KRW 20,000,000, and on October 8, 2015, the due date, and at the place of payment, at the Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

B. The first endorsement of the Promissory Notes is in the form of endorsement C, D’s second endorsement in the form of endorsement, and Plaintiff’s third endorsement in the form of endorsement.

(each person for whom this award is made shall be the person for whom this award is made).

On October 8, 2015, the Plaintiff, as the final holder of the Promissory Notes of this case, proposed the payment of the Promissory Notes of Jeju Bank, Inc. to be made at the luminous branch of the Jeju Bank, but the said Promissory Notes was rejected due to the receipt of the accident report.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap's No. 1 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes of this case, the amount of KRW 20,000,000 per annum under the Commercial Act from October 9, 2015 to November 20, 2015, which is the day following the date on which the Plaintiff presented a payment of the Promissory Notes of this case, to November 20, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes of this case, and the delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 15 per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from

3. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the defendant acquired the Promissory Notes in this case by deceptive act with C and D, and the plaintiff knowingly knowingly received the Promissory Notes in this case, but it is not sufficient to recognize the promissory Notes No. 1 merely with the statement of No. 1, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.