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

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff, upon determining the claim for the outstanding amount arising from November 2012 to December 2015, 2015, extracted the oil remaining after being supplied with dtetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetetete from November 201, 2012 to December 2015, and sold it to the Defendant by mixing it with other materials can be acknowledged as either there is no dispute between the parties or by the purport

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number) is sufficient to recognize the amount receivable that the Plaintiff had not received to the Defendant during the above period as to whether it constitutes 29,347,500 for the total amount receivable that was sold to the Defendant. The plaintiff's assertion is without merit since there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

[Attachment, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of credit-price claims arising from a continuous goods supply contract is to run individually from the time when each credit-price claim arising from an individual transaction occurred, and it cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription is calculated in a lump sum as to the total amount of credit-price claims from the date of termination of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, Jan. 25, 2007). Therefore, even if the Plaintiff had an outstanding claim on feed sold during the above period, the extinctive prescription has expired three years after the date of occurrence of such claim, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion in this part

Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including each number) with respect to the claim for transaction price as of September 1, 2015, the plaintiff sold the single feed equivalent to KRW 9,684,00 to the defendant on September 1, 2015.