1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from November 14, 2015 to January 4, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 14, 2015, the Defendant issued one copy of the electronic bill (hereinafter “instant bill”) at the face value of KRW 100,000,00,000 at face value, and at the face value of KRW C, the number of the payee C, B, the delivery point of the National Bank of Korea, and the due date of November 13, 2015.

B. The instant Promissory Notes was endorsed and transferred in sequence to the Plaintiff via D, Hongjin, etc., and the Plaintiff requested collection of the Promissory Notes on November 13, 2015, and the payment was refused on the grounds of the Defendant’s report of acceptance.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 100 million per annum from November 14, 2015, the day following the payment date of the bill of this case, to January 4, 2016, which is the day when the duplicate of the bill of this case was served on the Defendant, 6% per annum under the Commercial Act, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day when the copy of the bill of this case is fully paid.

B. Regarding this, the defendant issued the bill of this case to B by stating that he would lend money without the intention or ability to pay the amount corresponding to the bill of this case. Since the plaintiff knowingly acquired the bill of this case with the knowledge that the bill of this case was issued in the above circumstances, the plaintiff's claim is unjustifiable. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff acquired the bill of this case with the knowledge that it was a part of the bill of this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Conclusion is decided as per Disposition.