매매대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. As to the cause of a claim, the Plaintiff: (a) was engaged in the manufacture and sales business of Tapoin and supplied the goods produced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant; (b) the amount of unpaid goods as of May 20, 2010 resulted in KRW 190,000; and (c) as the Defendant was unable to pay the amount of the goods, the period of repayment, etc. as of May 20, 2010, without specifying the amount of the goods; and (d) prepared a letter of payment stating that “the Defendant’s father was unable to pay the goods to the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant’s father was a joint guarantor; and (c) the Plaintiff would not dispose of the real estate located in Msan City until the obligation is repaid (hereinafter “the letter of payment in this case”). At the time, C did not dispute between the parties on the Defendant’s joint and several liability for the Plaintiff; or (c) the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the purport of each evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2.
According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay 190,000,000 won for goods and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.
A. The defendant asserts that the completion of the statute of limitations is the subject of short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, based on the premise that the claim for the price of goods in this case is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription for three years, “price for the products sold by the producer” under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, the plaintiff and the defendant prepare a letter of payment in this case, thereby making the period
First, it is examined whether the existing claim for the price of goods has been changed to the agreed amount claim due to the drawing up of the letter of payment in this case. However, even if the parties asserted that the claim concerning the existing legal relations is a claim based on the agreement, the nature of the claim is not changed.