A. The Plaintiff is a company that distributes and sells livestock products, and the Defendant is a person who engages in wholesale and retail business of livestock products under the trade name E and F.

B. The Plaintiff from March 26, 2015 to the same year

8. Until October 24, 200, the livestock products of KRW 76,963,720 were supplied to E; KRW 46,598,910 were paid; from October 6, 2015 to August 9, 2016, the livestock products of KRW 117,643,430 were supplied to F and received KRW 73,00,000.

[Grounds for recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on a party’s claim

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 75,008,240 for the total amount of unpaid goods and 6% per annum as stipulated by the Commercial Act from August 10, 2016 to May 25, 2018 on the record that it is clear that it is the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case; and 3(1) of Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to May 31, 2019; Article 2(1) of the Addenda to the Regulations on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019); Article 3(1) of the former Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings (amended by Presidential Decree No. 29768, May 21, 2019).

B. The defendant's argument that the defendant continued to trade with the plaintiff, but all of the price of the goods delivered was approved, and the extinctive prescription has expired even if some of the accounts payable are payable.

Therefore, it is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4 alone was sufficient to recognize that the defendant approved the price of the goods to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to recognize this differently, the defendant's defense of repayment is without merit

In addition, as to the defense for the completion of extinctive prescription, the plaintiff was examined as to E from March 26, 2015 to the same year.

8. up to 24.