1. The defendant's KRW 31,980,00 and about this, 5% per annum from January 11, 2020 to July 8, 2020 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff engages in the business of selling trees in the trade name of C, and the defendant operates the farming source in the trade name of "D".

B. From January 3, 2013 to September 23, 2015, the Defendant was supplied with trees equivalent to KRW 151,866,00 from the Plaintiff. Of them, the Defendant did not pay a tree amounting to KRW 31,980,000.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the unpaid amount of goods is KRW 35,280,000 and claims the price for goods equivalent to the above amount, but there is no evidence to support the fact that the unpaid amount of goods is KRW 35,280,000.

However, according to the above facts and the above evidence, it is recognized that the amount of goods unpaid due to a wooden transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is 31,980,000, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 31,980,000 won for goods and delay damages to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

B. The defendant asserts that the statute of limitations defense of this case expired after the three-year short-term statute of limitations.

Unless there are special circumstances, the extinctive prescription of credit payment claims arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods shall individually run three years (the price for the goods sold by the merchant under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act) from the time each credit payment claims arising from an individual transaction have occurred, unless there are other special circumstances.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). As seen earlier, the health unit for the instant case, and the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant on September 23, 2015. It is apparent that the Plaintiff’s instant lawsuit was filed on January 6, 2020, which was three years after the said lawsuit was filed.

However, approval of debt as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription is a person who is a party to the benefit of prescription, thereby losing the claim due to the completion of extinctive prescription.