약정금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to not more than 2, 17, 2, 2, and 3, 420 of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the court’s explanation as to this case is cited by the main text of Article 420
[Supplementary Parts]
C. 1) Determination on the defense of extinctive prescription is based on the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant against the Defendant is a carrier’s transport charge; (b) if it is not exercised within one year pursuant to Articles 147 and 122 of the Commercial Act, the extinctive prescription expires. However, since the Defendant did not exercise the Defendant’s transport charge for one year from April 201, the freight payment date indicated in the cruital transport contract, the extinctive prescription has expired; (c) the Plaintiff, during several years, entered into a transport contract with the Defendant, entered into an agreement with the Defendant to reduce the transport charge amount of KRW 27 million to KRW 13 million (hereinafter “instant agreement”); and (d) on May 26, 2011, entered into an agreement with the Defendant to reduce the transport charge amount of KRW 13 million with the Defendant’s transport charge to KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant agreement”). In view of the circumstances that the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant introduced the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as the Defendant’s transport charge of KRW 13 million.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant is not subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Articles 147 and 122 of the Commercial Act.
The defendant's defense is without merit.
2. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and correct.