beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.01 2018가단2721

물품대금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a merchant who supplies food with the trade name “E” in both weeks at the two weeks, and Defendant B is a person who runs food miscellaneous retail business with the trade name “G” in both weeks and closed on November 11, 2013.

Defendant C is the husband of Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap's evidence 4, Eul's evidence 1

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied food charges to Defendant B’s G by February 8, 2013, but discontinued transactions with the outstanding amount of KRW 31,474,100, and Defendant C guaranteed the Defendant B’s obligation to pay for the goods.

As to this, the Defendants did not have a debt payable to the Plaintiff, even if not, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods has expired, and the Defendant B did not guarantee the Defendant B’s claim for the purchase price of goods.

B. Determination is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s claim for the remainder of the goods against Defendant B as the health care unit, the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the witness H’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(B) Even if a claim for the price of goods is recognized, the said claim is subject to the three-year statute of limitations pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act for the price of goods sold by the Plaintiff, which is the merchant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the due date for the payment of the claim for the price of goods has been fixed, and the extinctive prescription is in progress from the date of delivery, which is the date of the establishment of the claim. However, the fact that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on February 7, 2018, which is the date when the three-year statute of limitations elapsed from February 8, 2013

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.