청구이의
1. The Defendant’s case concerning the purchase price of goods at the Sung-gun District Court 2018Gau1146, Seogu District Court 2018.
1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, on August 17, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the goods price of KRW 14,013,970 (hereinafter “instant goods price”) and damages for delay (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”). On September 7, 2018, the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation as stated in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant decision of performance recommendation”) and recognized the fact that the said decision of performance recommendation became final and conclusive on September 28, 2018.
2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant, who operates manufacturing and wholesale sales business, such as agricultural materials and subdivisions, etc., with the overall purport of the pleadings as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, sells various kinds of goods, etc., such as joint-type 2 until November 8, 2011, which were not paid by the Plaintiff until then, constitutes KRW 16,013,970, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,000,000 as part of the instant goods on March 15, 2012, and subsequently paid KRW 14,013,970 after the remainder of the price of the instant goods became KRW 14,00.
The instant claim for the purchase-price of goods is three years in accordance with Article 163(6) of the Civil Act, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on August 17, 2018 after three years from the date of the last repayment is recognized as above. As such, the instant claim for the purchase-price of goods was already extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
Therefore, compulsory execution according to the decision on execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.
3. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion: ① A former director of the defendant company and D, who was an employee of the defendant company, demanded the plaintiff to pay the price of the goods of this case from time to time; the plaintiff constantly expressed his intention to pay the price of the goods of this case; ② After the expiration of the extinctive prescription of the claim for the goods