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

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was engaged in the business of processing money with the trade name of G, and H is a person who supplied money to the Gun with the trade name of I.

B. The Plaintiff supplied H with processed meat products, and as of November 1, 200, the Plaintiff had a claim for the amount of KRW 356,708,400 with respect to H.

C. H died on January 30, 2010, and H’s heir is the Defendant, Appointor D, E’s name prior to the name of the Defendant, Appointor D, E’s name, and F.

On April 26, 2010, the Defendant and the appointed parties D, E, and F received the Seoul Family Court Decision 2010 Madan1619 on April 26, 2010 on the acceptance of the declaration of renunciation of inheritance in respect of the deceased H’s inherited property, and the appointed parties C received a decision on the acceptance of the declaration of renunciation of inheritance in respect of the deceased H’s inherited property in the foregoing case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant and the designated parties, who are the heir of H, are obligated to pay the unpaid price of goods and the damages for delay thereof for each inheritance share, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense is a defense that the above claim for the price of goods has expired by the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's claim is the price for the goods supplied as a seller of goods processed from meat, as seen earlier. According to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, the price for the goods sold by the merchant is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years. The plaintiff himself claims that the price for the goods sold by the merchant is the due date of payment of the above goods on January 1, 2002. Since the lawsuit in this case is clearly recorded on the record that the claim in this case was filed on December 16, 2013, which was three years after the lawsuit in this case, the above claim for the price for the goods had already expired by the statute of limitations before the lawsuit

The plaintiff asserts that H paid some of the price on December 28, 2009. The above argument is interrupted.