1. Defendant B’s KRW 25,500,000 as well as 20% per annum from July 17, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into an original sale contract with Defendant B, and supplied the original unit equivalent to KRW 35,862,300. The Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) endorsed the Plaintiff’s payment intent of KRW 25,500,000 for the remainder of the goods payment obligation of Defendant B. 25,50,000 at face value.

However, as the above bill was rejected, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount of KRW 25,500,000 to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on deemed confessions as to Defendant B (Articles 150(1) and (3) and 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. According to the evidence No. 5 of the Defendant Company’s claim No. 5, the Defendant’s endorsement of the electronic bill of this case to the Plaintiff on October 17, 2014, and transfer the amount of KRW 25,500,000 (hereinafter “the electronic bill of this case”) issued by Pauria Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff on the electronic bill (hereinafter “the electronic bill of this case”). However, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, the Defendant Company: (a) stated that the electronic bill of this case would be transferred from E to the Plaintiff; and (b) stated that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 22,50,000 at a discount of not more than three (3) days per week; and (c) sent the amount of the bill to the Plaintiff’s account; (d) the Defendant Company did not receive the discount of the bill of this case; and (e) the Defendant Company’s criminal complaint was acknowledged to have been charged for fraud; and (e) the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company No. 5.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant Company delivered an electronic bill to the Plaintiff with the intent to pay the purchase-price obligations of Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff’s claim of this case focuses on the purport of seeking payment of a bill of exchange against the endorser, according to the purport of Gap’s evidence No. 5 and all pleadings, the Plaintiff’s endorsement on the electronic bill of this case on November 10, 2014.