The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act provides that the extinctive prescription of a claim for the payment of interest, support fees, salaries, usage fees, and other money or other things within a period of not more than one year shall be completed if it is not exercised for three years;

This is a determination of the extinctive prescription of share-based claims arising from bonds for life, which are basic rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da21705, Sept. 10, 1993; 9Da1949, Jun. 12, 2001); “Claims determined by a period not exceeding one year” refers to claims paid periodically for a period not exceeding one year.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da25302, Sept. 20, 1996; 2013Da20571, Jul. 12, 2013). In addition, the damage claim due to nonperformance is an extension of the original claim or an alteration of the content of the original claim, and thus, identical to the original claim.

Therefore, when the original claim has expired by prescription, the damage claim also expires.

Meanwhile, even if the obligor did not perform any contractual obligation, the obligee still holds the claim stipulated in the pertinent contract. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the obligor cannot be deemed to have obtained profits without any legal ground on the ground that the obligor did not perform his/her obligation, and even if so, the statute of limitations has expired.

It cannot be viewed otherwise even if there is no difference.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 91Da28979 delivered on May 12, 1992, and 2005Da31113 delivered on April 28, 2005, etc.). 2. Reviewing the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

The Plaintiff between the Defendant on January 1, 2007 and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s excluding the Republic of Korea for five years from January 1, 2007 (from December 31, 201). The Plaintiff’s embling on the grain produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in a foreign country.