물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On October 12, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied industrial goods of KRW 22,165,00, including value-added tax, to the Defendant on October 12, 2010. Thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are not disputing each other. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the price of the goods and the damages for delay to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. The defendant's defense asserts that ① even though the plaintiff entered into an exclusive supply contract with the defendant, the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim because he did not perform his exclusive supply contract, and ② the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods has expired after the three-year statute of limitations.
First of all, as to the defense of extinctive prescription, the Plaintiff is a merchant who manufactures, produces, and sells industrial pressure limits, etc., and the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is the price for the goods sold by the Plaintiff, as seen earlier. As such, the above claim of this case was extinguished on October 13, 2013, for which the three-year prescription period from the date of supply had lapsed pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, the aforementioned defense was reasonable.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.