1. The original copy of the payment order issued by the Daegu District Court No. 2009Guj4744 against the Plaintiff of the Jinvia Co., Ltd. succeeded by the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The actual Non-Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “former Non-Trade”) asserted that a promissory note amounting to KRW 20 million in face value and KRW 20 million in face value and KRW 20 million in face value issued by C (hereinafter “each of the Promissory Notes”) and a promissory note amounting to KRW 15 million in face value and KRW 15 million in face value, and a promissory note amounting to KRW 15 million in face value and KRW 15 million in face value, G, and a promissory note amounting to KRW 15 million in face value and KRW 2 million in face value were refused to pay. On April 1, 2009, the Plaintiff issued an order to pay the Plaintiff, who is the endorser of the issuer C and each of the Promissory Notes, with the Daegu District Court Decision 2009Gu4744, respectively. On April 1, 2009, the Plaintiff issued an order to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff for the payment of each of the Promissory Notes in question.

B. The subsequent fact-finding transferred the claim against the Defendant under the above payment order, and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Article 43 of the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act provides that when a bill of exchange is not payable at maturity, the holder may exercise his right of recourse against the endorser, the drawer, and other parties liable to the bill of exchange. In order to exercise his right of recourse against the endorser, the bill must be held.

According to the facts seen earlier, the actual trade was issued by applying for a payment order seeking payment of the amount as a exercise of the right of recourse to the Plaintiff, who is an endorser, on the premise that each of the Promissory Notes

Therefore, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 2 through 5 and the whole pleadings, the holder of each of the Promissory Notes of this case is the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, not the actual trade, and the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the holder of each of the Promissory Notes of this case, is the Daegu District Court.