물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff is a person who runs a wholesale and retail business for motor vehicles with the trade name “C” at the above Plaintiff’s domicile, and the Defendant was a person who runs a manufacturing business of motor vehicle parts or wholesale and retail business with the trade name “D” at the above Defendant’s domicile.
B. The Plaintiff supplied 582,909,074 won in total to the Defendant from January 16, 2014 to September 19, 2014, and from September 19, 2015 to September 25, 2015. The Defendant repaid 238,474,804 won in total to the Plaintiff from March 27, 2014 to August 28, 2015.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 34,434,270, except for the remainder of KRW 238,474,80,074 from the Plaintiff, who was paid by the Plaintiff out of the total amount of KRW 582,90,074, which was paid by the Plaintiff, to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
B. Determination 1 on Defendant’s defense, etc. asserts that the Plaintiff’s remaining other loan claims have expired with the three-year prescription period. On the other hand, the claim on the price of goods sold by merchants is three years (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act) and the claim on the price of goods sold by merchants continues to be extinguished individually from the time when each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurred, barring any special circumstance (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, Jan. 25, 2007). The Plaintiff supplied other credit payment claims from January 16, 2014 to September 19, 2014, and from September 19, 2015 to September 25, 2015. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim on the price of goods sold by the merchants is ultimately running from the Plaintiff’s transactional relationship with the Defendant from September 25, 2015 to September 25, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005.