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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff sold the main contents, such as the content pipe, to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay 12,861,016 won for the goods. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the above price for the goods and delay damages to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that there was no transaction between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and even if the claim for the price of goods against the defendant alleged by the plaintiff is recognized, the three-year extinctive prescription has expired.

B. It is insufficient to acknowledge that a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of the main agents or that there was such a transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the sole basis of the written evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, even if the claim for the price of the goods alleged by the Plaintiff is recognized, this constitutes “price for the goods and goods sold by producers and merchants” under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, the three-year short-term extinctive prescription applies. Even according to the Plaintiff’s claim itself, the Defendant was supplied with the main agent on December 12, 201, and there was no further payment from the Plaintiff on December 19, 201 to the Plaintiff on December 19, 201. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the claim for the price of the goods was due at least before or around December 19, 2011, and since it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 20, 2016, which was more than three years prior to the due date, the statute of limitations has already expired.

The defendant's assertion pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is consistent with this conclusion.