물품대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The basic facts are corporations with business purposes such as wholesale and retail business of machinery, etc.; Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is a corporation with business purposes such as pollution prevention facility business; Defendant B is the representative of Defendant Co., Ltd.
On May 11, 2004, the Defendant Company drafted a written confirmation to the effect that the payable amount is KRW 12,000,000,000, out of the paid amount of goods supplied to the Plaintiff.
On February 27, 2007, the Plaintiff received 1,875,000 won as down payment from the Defendant Company and supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 8,290,000 to the Defendant Company on March 6, 2007, and then paid KRW 3,415,000 on July 31, 2007, but the Defendant Company did not pay the remainder amount of KRW 3,415,00 (=8,290,000-1,875,000-3,000,000).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. According to the above basic facts as to the claim against the defendant company, barring any special circumstance, the defendant company is obligated to pay the above amount of goods and delay damages to the plaintiff. However, the defendant company's defense that the above claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription. Thus, according to the above basic facts, the above claim for the price of goods constitutes "the price of goods and goods sold by the producer and merchant" as provided by Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and the short-term extinctive prescription for three years shall apply. The plaintiff's lawsuit in this case is obvious in the records that the defendant company filed a lawsuit on December 30, 2013 after three years from August 1, 2007 for the payment of the price of goods. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the above claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription.
The plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations has been interrupted since the defendant company continued to perform its obligation by promising the repayment of debt even before September 2009, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.