According to the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below decided on the defendant's defense that the claim for the non-exclusive alcoholic beverage payment among the original defendant for which the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has been completed pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, shall proceed with the period of extinctive prescription from the time when the transaction relation was terminated with respect to the continuous transaction relationship, such as the supply of goods. In light of the whole purport of the arguments in the original judgment, the court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's claim for the non-exclusive alcoholic beverage payment against the defendant was suspended from the sale of alcoholic beverage other than the original case since August 5, 1973, but until August 27, 1974, it can be recognized that the plaintiff continued to supply alcoholic beverage with the defendant, but the payment amount was immediately approved in cash, so it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for the above credit payment order against the defendant was suspended by a lawsuit before the expiration of three

However, the majority opinion of the goods sold by the merchant, such as the non-exclusive payment claim among the original defendant, is complete due to the failure to exercise it for 3 years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and even if such credit payment occurred due to continuous transaction, such credit payment shall individually commence from the time when each credit payment claim occurred, and the three years have passed from the time when each credit payment claim is extinguished (refer to the judgment of the court below 64Da35 delivered on August 31, 1964), and even if the credit payment claim occurred due to continuous transaction, the decision of the court below did not say that the above credit payment claim was terminated, and even after the completion of the fixed short-term extinctive prescription period under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code has been reached, it is reasonable to discuss some of the grounds for appeal since it affected the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the starting point of the short-term period under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)