물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff supplied food materials, etc. by June 11, 2009, while continuously trading with the Defendant operating the “C” as a merchant engaging in food wholesale and retail business. The Plaintiff did not receive the price of KRW 17,637,600.
In addition, the plaintiff secured the provisional coefficient list issued by the defendant and lent KRW 40,000,000 to D, which is the husband of the defendant, but did not receive KRW 20,000 among them.
Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the total amount of 37,637,600 won for the above goods and loans.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence No. 3 of the part claiming the price of goods, the Defendant is deemed to have promised the Plaintiff to pay the price of the goods within 12 months from July 14, 2009 (the date of preparation of a supplementary certificate). Thus, the period of payment for the price of the goods should be July 14, 2010.
However, the extinctive prescription of the merchant's claim for the purchase price of goods is three years, and the lawsuit in this case was filed on November 5, 2014 with the maturity of three years from the above maturity date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of goods has already expired by prescription.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.
B. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion on the part of the claim for a loan, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant’s husband D, which is not the Defendant. Thus, unless the Defendant is jointly and severally liable, the Defendant cannot seek reimbursement of the said money from the Defendant.
Although D offered the Plaintiff as a security for a loan of the virtual coefficient check issued in the name of the Defendant, the issuer of the check is liable for the check, in principle, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant issued the check with the intent of joint and several sureties, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for a loan against the Defendant cannot be accepted.
3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.