물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On July 30, 2010 and August 9, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied LDPPER to C jointly operated by the Defendants. Since the total amount of the goods was 72,320,875 causes for dispute between the parties, the Defendant is liable to pay the goods price and its delay damages to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.
Since the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is established, Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act provides that the extinctive prescription of “the price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants” shall be three years, and the instant claim shall be considered as the price for the goods sold by the Plaintiff, a merchant. Since the instant lawsuit was filed on July 20, 2015, which was three years from August 9, 2010, the date of the final supply of goods, the extinctive prescription has expired.
The plaintiff asserts that the "price for the goods sold by the merchant" under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code means that the merchant sells the goods to the final consumer, and that if the goods are sold to the intermediate supplier like the defendant, the five-year commercial extinctive prescription shall apply, but this cannot be accepted.
(See Supreme Court Decision 64Da35 delivered on August 31, 1964, which states that the above provision applies to the price of goods sold by wholesalers to a person for the purpose of resale. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is accepted and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.