beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2015나12731

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who manufactures and sells tools with the trade name of “C”, and the Defendant was engaged in wholesale and retail business of tools with the trade name of “D.”

B. The Plaintiff supplied tools to the Defendant by April 201.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In regard to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the amount of KRW 4,204,482 as the price for the goods of tools and the delay damages, the defendant asserted that the claim for the price for the goods of this case had expired after the expiration of the commercial extinctive prescription.

B. As to whether the statute of limitations has expired or not, Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides that “if a claim arising from a commercial act is not otherwise provided in this Act, the statute of limitations shall expire unless it is exercised for five years. However, if any other statute provides for a short-term statute of limitations, such provision shall govern.” Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act provides that “The price for products and goods sold by a producer or merchant shall expire unless it is exercised for three years.”

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, in light of the contents of the business operated by the Plaintiff and the details of the transaction of goods against the Defendant, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are merchants under the Commercial Act. The claims for the payment of goods of tools supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant are claims subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years in consideration of the products and goods sold by producers and merchants pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. Since July 13, 2014, which is the filing date of the instant lawsuit, was apparent that three years have elapsed from April 201, when the Plaintiff finally delivered the instant goods to the Defendant, the instant claims filed by the Plaintiff.