1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and its KRW 80,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20,000,000 from October 12, 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 12, 2012, when the Plaintiff delivered KRW 80 million to C on July 12, 2012, the Plaintiff received two copies of the Promissory Notes (the addressee, the place of payment, the place of payment, and each blank of the place of issuance) from each of the issuers, the respective face value of which is KRW 40 million, each of which is issued on July 12, 2012, and each payment date on October 12, 2012.

B. In granting KRW 20 million to C on July 18, 2012, the Plaintiff received a promissory note (each blank in the place of payment, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the place of issuance) issued on July 18, 2012 from the issuer, Defendant, the face value of KRW 20 million, the date of issuance, July 18, 2012, and the due date of payment.

C. Before the conclusion of the argument of this case, the Plaintiff supplement the recipient of each of the above promissory notes to the Plaintiff and each of the Seoul Metropolitan Government’s issue of the outstanding address.

[Reasons for Recognition] Class A 1 and 2-3, Evidence Nos. 3-4, Evidence Nos. 5-1, 2, and 3-1, respectively, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the Defendant, as the issuer of each of the above promissory notes, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, as the final holder of each of the above promissory notes, interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 10 million won per annum under the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from October 12, 2012, which is the payment date, and 20 million won from October 18, 2012, which is the payment date, from October 18, 2012 to May 22, 2014, each of which is the payment date, and 6% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment.

The defendant asserts that each of the above promissory notes was forged, but it is not sufficient to recognize that each of the above promissory notes was forged only with the statement of Nos. 1 through 11 in light of the result of appraiser D's seal imprint appraisal, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.