1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence No. 1 together with the purport of the entire pleadings.

On October 27, 2016, the Defendant issued electronic bills (bill E) at the face value of 64 million won, and at the maturity of 28 February 2017, and at the same time the electronic bill (bill E), which is the entire farm branch of Korea Bank.

B. Pursuant to Article 7-2(1) of the Issuance and Distribution of Electronic Bills Act, the Defendant divided the face value of the said electronic bill into KRW 36.5 million, and issued C with the electronic bill divided into KRW 36.5 million (hereinafter “instant bill”).

C. C endorsed and transferred the instant bill to the Plaintiff.

On February 28, 2017, the Plaintiff presented the instant bill to Korea Bank for payment, but was refused due to the shortage of deposit.

E. The Defendant’s representative replacement 1) was F at the time of the Defendant’s issuance of the Promissory Notes. 2) G was appointed as the Defendant’s representative director on December 19, 2016.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant, together with C, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes, the amount of KRW 36.5 million and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum prescribed by the Commercial Act from March 1, 2017 to September 23, 2017, the delivery date of a copy of the Promissory Notes, which is the day following the maturity date of the Promissory Notes, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The actual operator of the Defendant’s assertion is H, and H also issued the Promissory Notes. At present, the Defendant’s representative director G was formally appointed as the Defendant’s representative director and was unable to participate in the Defendant’s management by lending only the name of the Defendant’s representative director, and H was responsible for the issue arising from the Promissory Notes while managing the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant, who is the representative, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request