물품대금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The plaintiff is a person engaged in the supply business, such as food, and the defendant is engaged in the food retail business.
B. On December 19, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a continuous contract for the supply of food products to the Defendant. Under the above contract, the Plaintiff supplied the food products to the Defendant until December 19, 2012. Finally, the price of the non-specified goods as of December 26, 2012, which was partially paid by the Defendant, reaches KRW 39,307,600.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 39,307,600 and delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.
B. The defendant's defense contains a significant amount of the price of the goods supplied by the plaintiff three years prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the defendant defenses to the effect that the extinctive prescription expires. Thus, in a case where multiple claims relations for the same kind are established due to a continuous transaction between the same parties, if the debtor does not designate a specific obligation and pays part of the goods without any other special circumstances, it shall be deemed that the debtor has granted approval for the remaining obligation, and thus, the interruption of prescription or waiver can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 78Da1790, May 13, 1980). Thus, the plaintiff and the defendant continued to enter into a contract for the supply of goods and made transactions with the plaintiff. According to the purport of the statement and arguments stated in subparagraph 1 above, the defendant did not designate a specific obligation among the goods supplied to the plaintiff, and thus, the defendant can be recognized as having discharged part of the remaining goods as the defendant's repayment of the remainder of the goods.