2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff runs the sales business of scrap iron, etc. with the trade name of “E” in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and the Defendants run wholesale and retail business, such as scrap iron, with the trade name of Defendant B from “G,” and Defendant C, with the trade name of “H,” respectively.

B. From January 2008 to December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff sold scrap metal equivalent to KRW 201,643,345 to the Defendants over 24 occasions. As to the sales of scrap metal equivalent to KRW 118,939,295 with respect to the said transaction, a tax invoice was issued in each name of Defendant C with respect to the sales of scrap metal equivalent to KRW 82,704,050 in the name of Defendant B.

C. The Defendants paid totaling KRW 90,936,550 to the Plaintiff by October 29, 2011.

(Fact that the plaintiff is a person). [Grounds for recognition] The entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 110,706,795 (=201,643,345 - Amount of KRW 90,936,550 to the person who was paid the payment by the Plaintiff) and damages for delay.

B. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods had expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendants constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchants under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and the period of the extinctive prescription is three years. The instant lawsuit was filed on July 24, 2014, which was three years after December 31, 2010, the final transaction date of the said goods. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods had already expired prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the aforementioned defense by the Defendants is well-grounded.

As to this, the Plaintiff re-appealed that the extinctive prescription was interrupted on November 29, 2010, the final repayment date of the Defendants.