청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. From February 22, 2013, the Plaintiff was supplied with her mother, agrochemical, etc. from the Defendant running C.
B. On February 1, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for a payment order with the Plaintiff at the Seocho-gun District Court of the Chuncheon District Court seeking the payment of KRW 3,501,000 for the goods price and damages for delay.
C. On February 5, 2018, the above court ordered the Plaintiff to pay “The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 3,501,000 won with 6% per annum from November 13, 2014 to the delivery date of the original payment order, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.”
(Sacheon District Court Decision 201No. 17, Young Chang-gun District Court Decision 2010Da17, hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.
The instant payment order was finalized on February 23, 2018.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, 3, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. The Plaintiff asserted that he was supplied with pesticides from the Defendant, and around March 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the full payment of the price of the goods so far and terminated the transaction with the Defendant.
Even if the purchase price of goods between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was not fully repaid.
Even if the defendant's claim for the price of goods against the plaintiff was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
As long as the defendant's claim for the price of goods has expired due to the repayment or completion of prescription, compulsory execution based on the payment order of this case should be dismissed.
B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant demanded that the plaintiff pay the price of the goods payable to the plaintiff several times after the transaction with the plaintiff was terminated, but did not pay the price.
The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's claim for the price of goods has expired due to the completion of prescription, but the defendant continuously sent text messages requesting the payment of the price of goods to the plaintiff, and applied for the payment order of this case.