청구이의
1. The Defendant’s recommendation decision on the Defendant’s recommendation for the purchase price of goods at the Suwon District Court KRW 2018Gaso7013.
1. On September 13, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the payment of goods (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”). On September 18, 2018, the said court rendered a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “instant decision”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 20,660,200 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint to the day of complete payment” (hereinafter “instant decision”).
The previous complaint and the instant decision were served on the Plaintiff on September 21, 2018, and the facts finalized on October 6, 2018 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to raise an objection are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant, around August 2013, supplied the Plaintiff with the product equivalent to KRW 408,00 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 40,800,00,000 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 850,00) for the improvement of SS14 noise (hereinafter “the gold type of this case”); the product equivalent to KRW 9,874,00,000 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 987,400) on June 17, 2016; and the product equivalent to KRW 408,00,00 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 40,80,00) on June 27, 2016; the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant for the price of the product.
(A) The Defendant stated that the value-added tax would not be separately claimed in the instant lawsuit through a preparatory document dated May 15, 2019.
Plaintiff
The Plaintiff did not receive the penalty of this case from the Defendant.
Even if there were such facts, the Defendant filed the previous lawsuit after the expiration of the short-term extinctive period of three years from the date on which the Defendant asserted that the gold punishment was delivered, and thus the claim for the price of the goods in this case was extinguished by the statute of limitations.
3. Determination
A. The Plaintiff determined the remainder of the goods except the gold punishment of this case shall be against the Defendant, except the gold punishment of this case.