물품대금
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment against the plaintiff A, D, E, F, and H equivalent to the amount ordered to pay the following additional amounts.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is to be replaced by the attached table attached to the judgment of the court of first instance, and the attached table of claim amount and the cited amount table of the judgment of the court of first instance is to be replaced by the attached table attached to the judgment of the court of first instance, and except that the 5 pages 1 through 6 pages 16 (i.e., judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription), and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance (i.e., judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription), are identical
2. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is proved to have expired the extinctive prescription of a claim for goods based on the supply of newspaper, etc. that became due prior to December 23, 2012. In light of the foregoing, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of a claim for credit payment arising from a continuous goods supply contract is whether the extinctive prescription of a claim for credit payment arising from an individual transaction has run individually from the occurrence of each credit payment claim based on the individual transaction, and it is not deemed that the extinctive prescription of a claim for credit payment from the date of termination of the transaction cannot be calculated in a lump sum on the total amount of the credit payment claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 192). The Defendant’s claim for goods payment
The portion of the price of goods for which the period of payment has already arrived before December 23, 2012 (the portion of the goods supplied until November 30, 2012) had already expired with the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations prior to December 23, 2015, which is the date of the instant lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1548, Nov. 23, 2012). It is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff had already expired with the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations prior to December 23, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da16331, Apr. 6, 2015).