물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including a provisional number) as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the amount that the plaintiff failed to supply waste oil, etc. to the defendant from January 31, 2012 to December 31, 2015 constitutes KRW 46,289,593 (hereinafter "the price of the instant goods"), and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of the instant goods 46,289,593 and damages for delay.
2. On the assertion by the parties, the defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim for the price of goods has expired.
Pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, the claim for the price of goods in this case is a claim on the price of goods sold by a merchant and the three-year extinctive prescription is applied.
In addition, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the credit payment claim arising from a continuous goods supply contract is to proceed individually from the time of occurrence of each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction, and the extinctive prescription cannot be calculated in a lump sum from the date of termination of the transaction to the total amount of credit payment claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, Jan. 25, 2007). Thus, the extinctive prescription of three years from the date of each transaction shall apply, barring any special circumstance.
However, in cases where multiple claims relations with the same kind of object are established due to continuous transactions between the same parties, and when an obligor partly performs his/her obligations without designating a specific obligation, approval shall also be deemed granted for the remaining obligation, barring any other special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da64793, Jan. 23, 2014; 93Da14936, Oct. 26, 1993). According to subparagraph 3-15, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant by February 6, 2015.