매매대금
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. As to the purport of the parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 99,50,750 from January 2003 to November 2006 as the operator of C’s credit, the Defendant asserts that C’s representative is D, and the Plaintiff is not the creditor of the price of the goods, because it is merely against the accounting officer, and the above claim for the price of the goods is a false claim, and even if the above claim is recognized, the extinctive prescription of three or five years has expired.
2. Determination
A. Reviewing the determination of the cause of the claim, and the purport of the entire arguments and arguments as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it can be acknowledged that the outstanding amount of the claim for the price of goods against the defendant Eul was 9,509,750.
Although the defendant asserts that C's representative is D and claims for the price of goods are false claims, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above price claim of KRW 99,509,750 and damages for delay.
B. The defendant's defense of the extinctive prescription is a defense that the above claim for the price of goods has expired by the extinctive prescription. Thus, the period of payment for the above claim for the price of goods is no later than November 2006, as alleged by the plaintiff, and the above claim constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchants, and thus the short-term extinctive prescription for three years is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act. It is evident in the record that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on September 5, 2016, which was later than the third anniversary of the filing of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the above claim for the price of goods was already extinguished by the extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case.
Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.
As to this, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant sent text messages to the plaintiff and the business parties D on May 26, 2016 and the prescription has been interrupted. However, on May 26, 2016, the prescription has already expired.