1. The Defendant is jointly and severally and severally with the Seongdong Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff KRW 143,000,000 and the Defendant’s payment on January 23, 2016.

1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 3 and 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the development of the Sungsung Industrial Development Co., Ltd. issued one electronic bill (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) with the amount of KRW 143,00,000 on March 12, 2015, the payment bank No. 143,000,000, the payment bank No. Hysung Industrial Development Co., Ltd. issued one electronic bill (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) as of July 15, 2015. The instant promissory note was the addressee and the first endorsement, the first endorsement, the second endorsement, the second endorsement, the third endorsement, and the third endorsement, the Defendant, the fourth endorsement, and the first endorsement, the second endorsement, the second endorsement, and the Plaintiff, the last holder, respectively, refused to pay the instant bill to the payment bank on the maturity date, but it was recognized that the Plaintiff refused to pay the payment of the electronic bill.

According to the above, the Defendant, as the fourth endorsement, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the final holder of the Promissory Notes, jointly with Seongbuk Industrial Development Co., Ltd., the first endorsement, to pay the amount of KRW 143,00,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 23, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is obviously 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the date following the maturity of the Promissory Notes, as the date of delivery of the copy of the

2. The defendant's argument on the defendant's assertion argues that although the bill of this case was endorsed and transferred to B for the purpose of discount of bill, the defendant did not comply with B's promise, the defendant's assertion that the bill of this case was delivered to B by way of endorsement of D&C, which caused the amount of 100,000,000 bills, and the bill of this case was delivered as substitute for the defendant.

Even if the Defendant delivered the Promissory Notes for discount without connection with the cause, the Plaintiff knew that the Promissory Notes would prejudice the Defendant.