The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as a dam care, from around 2005 to December 31, 2013, and was not paid the amount of KRW 129,367,090 as of January 20, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 129,367,090 and the delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion of defect 1) The Defendant asserts that the payment cannot be made because there is any defect in the goods supplied by the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was any defect in the goods supplied by the Defendant, the above assertion is without merit. 2) The Defendant asserts that the transaction with the Plaintiff was concluded on January 201, and three years have elapsed since the date of completion of prescription.

Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides for the five-year commercial prescription, and the proviso provides that “if other Acts and subordinate statutes provide for the short-term prescription, such provisions shall apply.” Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act provides that “the price for products and products sold by producers and merchants” shall be the bonds subject to the three-year short-term extinctive prescription. As such, the foregoing provision takes precedence over the main sentence of Article 64 of the Commercial Act, Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides that the claim for the price for the instant goods supplied by the Plaintiff, a merchant, shall apply to the claim

It is evident that the instant lawsuit seeking the payment of the price for the instant goods was brought on November 10, 2018, which was three years after January 20, 2014, which was the last repayment date of the Defendant.

However, the whole purport of the pleadings is as follows: Gap, eight, and nine.