1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from August 17, 2015 to March 7, 2017.

1. As to the cause of the claim, the non-party Exchange Co., Ltd. issued a promissory note (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) at the face value of KRW 100 million on March 10, 2015, the payee Co., Ltd., and the due date, August 15, 2015. The promissory note in this case is endorsed by the payee Co., Ltd. as the first endorsement, the Defendant Co., Ltd. as the second endorsement, the Plaintiff’s second endorsement, and the third party, respectively. The Plaintiff presented a payment proposal for the said promissory note on August 17, 2015, which is within two business days from the due date of maturity of the instant promissory note, and the Plaintiff, the endorser of the said note, performed his/her duty of recourse on the same day, and redeemed the instant promissory note, can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the dispute between the parties, or the purport of the entire statement and the entire pleadings as set forth in subparagraphs A and 2.

According to the facts found above, the Defendant is obligated to pay interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 10 million won per annum, which is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act, from August 17, 2015 to March 7, 2017, on the record that the date when the Plaintiff performed the duty of recourse to the amount of KRW 100 million and the redemption of the Promissory Notes, and the date when the copy of the Promissory Notes was served on the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to pay interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the scope of the above recognition.

2. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant paid KRW 11.1 million to the plaintiff out of the obligation which caused the promissory note of this case. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is accepted.