2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. From the main point operated by the Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendant B was offered entertainment equivalent to the aggregate of KRW 4,210,00 between May 7, 2010 and May 2, 2012, and Defendant C was offered as a aggregate of KRW 8,060,00 between August 14, 2008 and May 18, 2012, but did not pay the Plaintiff the price. Thus, Defendant B was obligated to return KRW 4,210,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C was obligated to return KRW 8,00,000 to the unjust enrichment.

B. The Defendants asserted that they had no credit at the main place operated by the Plaintiff, and even if the Plaintiff had a claim against the Defendants, the said claim constitutes “food service charge claim” under Article 164 subparag. 1 of the Civil Act, and thus, the short-term extinctive prescription period of one year has expired due to the lapse of the extinctive prescription.

2. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff has a claim equivalent to the amount claimed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Even if the plaintiff's claim for the payment exists

Even if the above claim for payment is a food fee claim under Article 164 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Act, and if it is not exercised within one year, the extinctive prescription is complete. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, since the last transaction date with the Defendants is May 7, 2012 and May 18, 2012, the extinctive prescription is underway from May 7, 2012 and May 18, 2012, each of which is due date, and the lawsuit in this case was filed on July 27, 2015, which is one year after the said lawsuit was filed, is obvious in the record, and thus, the claim for payment by the Plaintiff’s assertion was extinguished by the completion of prescription.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff sent text messages to urge the Defendants to pay the above payment claims several times prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the Defendants promised to pay the text messages, and claiming extinctive prescription is contrary to the good faith.