물품대금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. From March 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) was a corporation operating the wholesale and cable retail business; (b) supplied construction materials to the Defendant from the Defendant’s construction site, such as D dormitory sites, E sewage treatment plants, etc.; and (c) did not receive the goods price of KRW 33,148,362; and (d) was drafted with a memorandum of payment from the Defendant on December 10, 2014 to pay the amount equivalent to the said goods price by June 30, 2015; and (c) sought payment of the said goods price and damages for delay.
2. In light of the foregoing, under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, in the case of products and goods sold by producers and merchants, the extinctive prescription is complete unless the claim is exercised for three years. The instant lawsuit is apparent in the record that it was filed on March 4, 2019 after three years from June 30, 2015, the Defendant’s payment angle, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods was terminated upon expiration of three years’ short-term extinctive prescription.
(A) The Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods is a commercial claim, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription should be applied. However, the proviso of Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides that “if other Acts and subordinate statutes provide for the period of short-term prescription, such provision shall apply.” As seen earlier, it is reasonable to apply the short-term extinctive prescription period of Article 163 subparag. 6-3 of the Civil Act to the Plaintiff’
3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.