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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 20,158,000 won (hereinafter “instant claim”) for the supply of fireworks products, etc. to the Defendant from 2010 to 2013.

As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above payment and delay damages to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff’s claim of this case by the Defendant became extinct upon the completion of the extinctive prescription, and even if not, the Defendant transferred its business to C on January 1, 2013, and thus, there was no fact that the Plaintiff was supplied with goods after January 1, 2013.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in the Evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff is a business operator who sells powders and fireworks products while operating D. The instant claim is a price for selling fireworks products, etc. to the Defendant, and the last transaction date between the Plaintiff and the Defendant may be acknowledged as of April 23, 2013.

In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case constitutes a claim on “price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants” under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, to which the three-year short-term extinctive prescription is applied. Meanwhile, the claim on credit payment arising from a continuous goods supply contract as in this case, barring any special circumstance, shall be deemed to have expired upon the lapse of three years from the date of termination of the transaction, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim in this case was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription on or before December 20, 2016, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s claim in this case expired at least on or before April 23, 2016, when three years have elapsed since April 23, 2013, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s transaction was closed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992).

(c).