1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied several times to the defendant who engages in the wholesale business of freezing fishery products in the name of "D" from October 5, 201 to July 30, 2014, and the defendant has paid the price of the goods in this case at the end of each month. The defendant has paid the price of the goods in this case at the end of each month, and the price of the goods in this case has not been paid KRW 1,00,000 on July 31, 2014 among the goods in which the unpaid amount was stored due to the failure to pay the total amount each month. Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendant in this case at KRW 41,761,050 is recognized. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods in this case and delay damages.

2. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant's claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case expired by prescription.

In light of the overall purport of the arguments as seen above, the Plaintiff is a stock company with the main purpose of freezing fishery products wholesale and retail business and sold the goods of this case to the Defendant as part of the above business. As such, the claim for the price of goods of this case constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchant and its extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, a claim for the price of goods arising from a continuous supply contract ought to individually proceed with extinctive prescription from the time a claim for the price of goods arising from an individual transaction occurs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). The claim for the price of goods in this case was incurred until July 30, 2014, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on October 30, 2018, which was three years after the lawsuit in this case was filed. Thus, the claim for the price of goods in this case had already been filed before the lawsuit in