물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2 and 3, and part of Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff operated a manufacturer, such as accelerator, fish, etc. with the trade name of "B" and produced and supplied fish, etc. to the defendant from around 200 to August 27, 2013; the balance of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from March 9, 2010 to August 27, 2013 is 36,627,955; the remainder of the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant from March 9, 2010 to August 27, 2013; the plaintiff can be acknowledged that the plaintiff manufactured and supplied the total amount of KRW 148,489,00 to the defendant from March 12, 2010 to August 27, 2013; the plaintiff received the total amount of KRW 1084,89.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the goods price to the Plaintiff KRW 36,627,955 and delay damages therefor.
2. The defendant's defense is proved to be extinguished by extinctive prescription after the lapse of three years from August 21, 2009, which is the last delivery date, as the price for the goods supplied by the plaintiff by 2009.
The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods against the Defendant is a price of goods, and the extinctive prescription period is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and the claim for price of goods on credit arising from the continuous supply contract is individual transaction, barring any special circumstance, and the extinctive prescription is individual from the time each credit payment claim occurred due to individual transaction. Thus, the extinctive prescription period is complete unless it is exercised within three years from the
However, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 15, 2015, which was three years after the lapse of the said three years from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods was extinguished by prescription prior to the instant lawsuit, barring any special circumstance.
As such, the defendant's above defense is justified.
As to this, the Plaintiff.