용역대금 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable, and thus, citing the reasoning of this judgment by this decision.
(However, under the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance, the portion of "No. 2 and No. 8" shall be amended to "No. 2 and No. 6" under the fourth sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance. 2. The judgment on
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act cannot be applied to the Defendant’s dental technician’s claim (from February 1, 2008 to July 30, 201, the extinctive prescription period has the nature of contract in that it is an incidental object produced to one patient, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the merchant to whom the three-year short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act applies is the price for the goods sold by the Defendant.
However, Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act provides that “the price for the products and goods sold by producers and merchants” is the short-term extinctive prescription of three years, and does not impose restrictions on the fact that the products or products must be substituted therefor. The Plaintiff, a merchant operating a dental laboratory, sold dental appliances produced in return for the payment of dental products to the Defendant, a dentist, who is a dentist. As such, it is reasonable to view that the instant claim is “the price for the products and goods sold by producers and merchants,” to which the short
Even if there is no difference in the outcome of applying the short-term extinctive prescription for three years, since it falls under a claim of a contractor under Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Code, or a claim of a consignee under subparagraph 7 of the same Article and a manufacturer's duties.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
B. The Plaintiff claiming the interruption of extinctive prescription applies the three-year short-term extinctive prescription to the instant claim.