1. The Defendants together with the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 102,00,000 and Defendant Neow World from April 6, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 30, 2015, Defendant Nevis World Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Nevis World”) issued one promissory note (hereinafter “instant Promissory note”) comprised of “102,000,000 won of face value, Seoul, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the date of payment, April 5, 2016, the issuer Nevis World Co., Ltd.”).

B. The bill of this case was subsequently endorsed and transferred in order to the Plaintiff through Multilatern Co., Ltd. (Unmortgaged Endorsement), Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Howon Industrial Construction”), and Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “A”).

C. The Plaintiff presented the bill of this case at the place of payment on the payment date, but rejected the payment.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Defendant Neow is the issuer of the Promissory Notes. Defendant Neow Industries Construction is jointly liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 6, 2016, which is the day following the date of the presentation of payment for the amount of KRW 102,00,000, and the following day following the date of the presentation of payment for the amount of KRW 102,00,000, as an endorser of the Promissory Notes Industries, as an endorser of the Promissory Notes, until December 13, 2016, for Defendant Neow Industries Construction, until October 26, 2016, and from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. As to the argument on the construction of the defendant beneficiary industry, since the construction of the defendant beneficiary industry was endorsed without compensation at the request of the actual operator B, it is alleged that it is not responsible for the bill of this case. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the above defendant's above argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion is decided as per Disposition.