청구이의
1. The defendant's Suwon District Court Decision 2018Daso21744 decided against the plaintiff.
1. According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on September 4, 2018 against the Suwon District Court 2018da21744 (hereinafter “instant goods price”) to seek payment of the goods price of KRW 10,241,968 (hereinafter “the instant goods price”) and damages for delay, and the said court rendered the decision on performance recommendation as stated in the Disposition No. 1 of the order on September 7, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant decision on performance recommendation”), and the said decision on performance recommendation becomes final and conclusive on September 28, 2018.
2. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the instant claim for the payment of the instant goods occurred during the period from January 1, 2012 to July 24, 2012. Since the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the instant goods on September 7, 2018 after three years from the date of the last transaction, the claim for the payment of the instant goods had already expired three years after the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
According to the evidence No. 5, No. 2-1, and No. 7-1 of the evidence No. 7, the Plaintiff’s trade name at the time of the establishment of the Plaintiff was changed to “B Co., Ltd. but its trade name was changed to “E Co., Ltd. on October 22, 2014,” “E Co., Ltd. on January 20, 2015,” “F Co., Ltd. (F) on March 2, 2015.” The Defendant’s “B Co., Ltd.” may be found to be the fact that the balance of the claim for the purchase price of goods as of July 24, 2012 is written as KRW 10,241,968.
According to the above facts, the claim for the price of goods in this case was a claim for the price of goods accrued prior to July 24, 2012, and it appears that the extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 and Article 6 of the Civil Act. The fact that the lawsuit was filed on or around September 7, 2018 after three years from the date of the above final transaction is recognized as above. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the claim for the price of goods in this case had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.
Therefore, compulsory execution according to the decision on execution recommendation of this case should be rejected.
3. As to this, the Defendant: (a) Additional goods are made by the Plaintiff around June 2015.