2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was not paid KRW 22,669,735 out of the price for the sale of the pressing to the Defendant from January 2008 to April 2010.

The starting point of the statute of limitations for the above goods-price claim is April 2, 2012 when the Plaintiff entered into a transaction with the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit before the statute of limitations expires.

B. By April 2010, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant was supplied with the original unit from the company that the Plaintiff operated separately by operating the Plaintiff and the sales chain C as a partnership business. However, upon the bankruptcy of C, C was exempt from the obligation to pay the goods from the Plaintiff as a partner, and even if not, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the goods has expired by prescription.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff, who is a manufacturer of the judgment bloard, sold the pressing to the Defendant, who is a seller, from January 2008 to April 201, 201, and was not paid KRW 22,669,735 out of the price is not a dispute between the parties.

However, barring special circumstances, the extinctive prescription of credit payment claims arising from a continuous goods supply contract may not be calculated from the date when each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurred, and the extinctive prescription cannot be calculated from the date of termination of the transaction to the total amount of credit payment claims. In the absence of confirmation or confirmation of the credit payment due to each other at each individual transaction, the fact that the goods were ordered and supplied cannot be deemed as having been approved of the outstanding credit payment obligations solely on the basis of the fact that the payment was newly made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940 Decided January 25, 2007, etc.). The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant against the Defendant is for the price for the goods sold by the Plaintiff, a merchant, the period of extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act is three years, and in light of the legal principles of the above Supreme Court precedents, the starting point is that the Defendant approved the king’