A. The Plaintiff is a company that engages in the business of manufacturing and selling sphones, and the Defendant is engaged in the business of manufacturing sphones.

B. The Plaintiff entered into a continuous supply contract with the Defendant, and supplied goods to the Defendant up to October 23, 2014 under the said supply contract, and the amount of the remainder of the contract until the time is 276,221,327 won in total, and thereafter, the Defendant paid 4,00,000 won to the Plaintiff around September 26, 2017, and paid 3,000,000 won to the Plaintiff each of the above goods.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the remaining price of KRW 269,221,327 [=26,221,327 - 7,00,000 (which shall apply to the plaintiff's claim for appropriation to the principal of his/her obligation)] and as to the above, after the date of final supply of goods, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as prescribed by the Commercial Act from October 26, 2014 to October 19, 2018, which is obviously from the date of service of the original payment order in this case until October 19, 2018, and 15% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until

3. The defendant's defense is a defense that the above claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription. Thus, the fact that the date of the final goods supply was October 23, 2014 is the same as mentioned above, and the due date of each claim for the price of goods has arrived whenever the plaintiff supplies goods to the defendant.

The above claim for the price of goods shall be subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. It is clear that the Plaintiff’s application for the payment order of this case was filed on October 8, 2018, which was three years after the date of supply of the final goods.

On the other hand, the plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted due to the defendant's partial repayment, and the defendant has expired the statute of limitations.