물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following determination as to the plaintiff's new argument at the trial of the court of first instance under Chapter 6, Chapter 4, of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. The Defendant’s additional determination is a defense that a claim for the price of goods claimed by the Plaintiff was not exercised for three years as provided by Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and the extinctive prescription has expired due to the failure to exercise the claim for the price of goods as provided by Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. As such, the fact that the transaction of goods between B and the Plaintiff was terminated on September 25, 2011 is obvious in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on February 6, 2015 after three years have passed since the lawsuit of this case was filed. However, on the other hand, on December 31, 2012 before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the fact that B affixed to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2012 and sent it to the Plaintiff’s external auditor. Accordingly, the statute of limitations has expired since it constitutes the approval of the above price of goods, and the interruption of the prescription has expired from that time to that time, the interruption of the extinctive prescription period has expired.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.