물품대금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On September 12, 2014, the court of first instance rendered a favorable judgment against the Defendant on the lawfulness of the subsequent appeal by serving a duplicate of the complaint, notification of the date of pleading, etc. on the Defendant by public notice, and rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on September 12, 2014, and also served the Defendant by means
Therefore, the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory period due to the reason that the defendant could not be held liable because he was unaware of the delivery of the judgment without negligence.
Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant on March 25, 2016 is deemed to meet the requirements for subsequent completion of procedural acts.
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant supplied livestock products to the Defendant by July 17, 2010, and that the Defendant did not pay KRW 4,072,006.
The defendant asserts that the three-year extinctive prescription of the claim in this case has expired.
However, according to Article 163 of the Civil Act, if the price for the products and goods sold by producers and merchants is not exercised for three years, the extinctive prescription is completed unless it is exercised for three years. Since the Plaintiff applied for the instant payment order on September 6, 2013, it is apparent that three years have passed since the date of supply of the goods, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was completed.
I would like to say.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed due to the lack of reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.