매매대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion sold each of the following sales to the Defendant: (a) the amount equivalent to KRW 14 million on June 7, 2012; (b) the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million on June 23, 2013; and (c) the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million on June 25, 2014; and (b) the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million on October 7, 2014; and (c) the Defendant paid only KRW 10 million on June 7, 2012; and (d) the amount equivalent to KRW 20 million on November 18, 2015; and (e) the remainder of the goods price and delay damages therefrom.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of each of the above goods against the Defendant constitutes a claim to which the three-year extinctive prescription applies under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and there is no assertion or proof as to the existence of an agreement as to the due date, and thus, the extinctive prescription period for each of the above goods payment claims shall run from the date of the above supply. Since the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on January 4, 2019 with the lapse of three years from the date of the above supply is apparent in the record, each of the above goods payment claims shall be deemed to have expired
B. In this regard, the Plaintiff asserts that each of the above claims against the Defendant for the purchase price of goods is based on a continuous contract for the supply of goods, and that the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription of each of the above claims for the purchase price of goods was interrupted on September 13, 2018, upon receiving payment of KRW 20 million from the Defendant on November 18, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a provisional attachment against the Defendant under the Changwon District Court Heading Branching 2018Kadan916 on September 13, 2018, which was within three years thereafter.
On the other hand, the recognition of the obligation as the cause of interruption of the extinctive prescription is established by expressing that the debtor who is the party who is the party to receive the extinctive prescription benefit recognizes the existence of the right against the person who is to lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period, and the method of indication is not required in any form, but can be made in an implied manner without necessarily requiring an explicit statement, but Supreme Court Decision 200 April 25, 2000.