1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 61,60,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from July 11, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract for the production and supply of IPA (hereinafter “instant contract”) with D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) at the three-day and early high-frequency gambling at KRW 80,000 (excluding value-added tax). The Plaintiff manufactured goods under the instant contract and completed delivery on January 27, 2016. The Plaintiff paid KRW 26,400,000 to the Plaintiff on December 14, 2015. Accordingly, the unpaid payment to the Plaintiff was KRW 61,60,000 (=88,000,000 - 26,40,000,000). The Defendant did not dispute between the parties to the instant contract.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, who comprehensively succeeded to the rights and obligations by absorbing the non-party company, is obligated to pay the plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 61,600,000 and damages for delay pursuant to the contract of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

As to this, the defendant's defense that the plaintiff's claim has expired, the contract of this case is so-called production supply contract, and the contract of this case constitutes an accessory material and thus the period of extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's claim under the contract of this case is three years. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is obvious that the plaintiff's claim of this case was filed on July 1, 2019, clearly from the 15th day after the due date for payment of the contract of this case from January 27, 2016, the delivery date of the above goods. However, in full view of the statements in subparagraphs 6 through 7 and the witness E's testimony, the non-party company sought to transfer the claim of this case against the non-party company F for the payment of the price to the plaintiff after July 12, 2017 and around January 3, 2018, it can be acknowledged that the non-party company, the debtor of this case, who received the benefit of extinctive prescription, seeks to transfer the claim against the non-party company.