물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 25, 2007, the Plaintiff engaged in the fishery product manufacturing and selling business under the trade name D, which is a judgment on the cause of the claim, supplied the fishery products to E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), E is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above 50 million won and damages for delay, as a joint guarantor of E, with respect to the loan amount for the fishery products supplied by the Plaintiff on January 25, 2007. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20340, Mar. 20, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 24477, Mar. 20, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20350, Feb. 24, 2007; Presidential Decree No. 20350, Feb. 1, 2006>
2. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods has expired after the three-year prescription. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against E constitutes a claim to which the three-year prescription applies pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. The fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on August 21, 2019, which was three years from March 20, 2007, the due date stipulated in the above loan certificate, is apparent in the record, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against E was extinguished by prescription before the lawsuit in this case is filed, and the plaintiff's joint and several guarantee claim against the defendant against the defendant was extinguished according to the subsidiary nature of the guaranteed obligation.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is justified.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.