물품대금등
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as by strengthening the goods to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) from July 24, 2010 to October 10, 201, and the remainder of the goods price was 35,038,130.
Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the defendant company is obligated to pay the price for the above goods and delay damages to the plaintiff.
In this regard, the defendant company asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription, so the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods is subject to the three-year extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act as consideration for goods sold by the merchant. The fact that the lawsuit in this case was filed on March 16, 2018 after three years from October 10, 201, the last date of the supply of goods is clear.
Therefore, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods already extinguished by the completion of the statute of limitations, and thus, it cannot be accepted.
2. The Plaintiff seeking reimbursement for the instant claim against Defendant C, but there is no evidence as to the grounds on which Defendant C bears the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the goods price together.
Therefore, we cannot accept the claim against the defendant C.
3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.