물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the goods, such as steel and steel plates equivalent to KRW 30,59,600 by February 3, 2016, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 30,59,000 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”) and delay damages therefrom, as sought by the Plaintiff.
2. As to the defendant's defense, the defendant paid all the price for the goods that occurred by the year 2011, and even if it is not so, the claim for the price for the goods in this case had already expired by the prescription.
On the other hand, the instant claim for the price of goods constitutes a price for goods sold by a merchant, and the extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act; and the claim for the price of goods arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription is individually terminated from the time when each claim for the price of goods occurred due to an individual transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). The instant claim for the price of goods occurred until February 3, 2016. As such, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods was filed on April 1, 2020, which was three years after the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed, prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.
Therefore, the defendant's above statute of limitations defense is reasonable.
3. As to the judgment on the plaintiff's second defense, the plaintiff argued that the defendant would repay the obligation of the purchase price of the goods of this case in currency with the plaintiff around October 2019. Although the claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case was suspended by the approval of the obligation, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's second defense is without merit.
4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so ordered.