1. Each of the plaintiffs' claims is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Each of the following facts shall be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including the Serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the following facts

1) On February 10, 2015, the Defendant: (a) Espia Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Espia”); (b)

(1) The electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) number 034201502100000000000, the issue amount of KRW 50 million, and the due date for payment as of May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant bill 1”).

(2) B, (2) No. 034201502100000000000, issue amount of KRW 50 million, due date for payment, and electronic bills as of May 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant second bill”)

(2) On February 10, 2015, the non-party company issued each of the instant bill to the Plaintiff Gatek Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Gatek”) and endorsed and transferred each of the instant bill to the Plaintiff Gatekn Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Dotekn”) on February 10, 2015.

3) On May 31, 2015, each of the instant notes was rejected on the grounds of the Defendant’s report of the incident (defluence and failure to contract).

B. According to the facts stated in the above paragraph (a), the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiffs the issue amount of each of the bills of this case, 50 million won, and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion was that the subcontract between the defendant and the non-party company, which is the cause of the issuance of each of the instant notes, was cancelled or impossible to perform because of cancellation or deception, and the obligations against the plaintiffs of the non-party company, which is the cause of endorsement of each of the above bills, did not exist from the beginning or extinguished due to repayment.

Nevertheless, the reason why the plaintiffs filed the suit of this case against the non-party company by endorsement and assignment is to cut off the defendant's personal defense against the non-party company. Thus, it constitutes a litigation trust, or the plaintiffs knew that it would prejudice the defendant.