The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the amount equivalent to value-added tax on the service price under the instant service contract constituted “claim for Construction Work” under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and that the statute of limitations expired on the ground that the three-year short-term statute of limitations is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and that the statute of limitations expired from July 5, 2013, which the Plaintiff could have exercised.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the period of extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act and the starting point of counting extinctive prescription, etc.

The Supreme Court decisions cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.