beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
There is no dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and evidence No. 1-3, the Plaintiff, who is engaged in gold-type production business, etc., supplied goods such as street ELDDDV to the Defendant and was not paid for the goods of KRW 45 million on or around 2012. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 45 million and damages for delay.
The defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the price of goods claimed by the plaintiff has expired.
The extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act with respect to the claim for the price of the instant goods sold by the merchants. Since the fact that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was brought on September 5, 2018 after three years from September 3, 2015, which appears that the Defendant would have paid part of the purchase price, is apparent in the record, the said claim for the price of the instant goods had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit.
Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out has merit.
[A peremptory notice, which is not a claim for judgment, shall not have the effect of interrupting prescription unless a judicial claim, participation in bankruptcy proceedings, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance for compromise, seizure, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition is made within six months after giving a peremptory notice, and where a judicial claim has been made after giving a peremptory notice several times, the interruption of prescription shall not always take effect at all times at the time of the first peremptory notice, but shall take effect at the time of the final demand within six months retroactively from that time (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu437, Jul. 12, 1983). Thus, even if the Plaintiff sent a proof of the content that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay payment, around January 30, 2018 and around April 9, 2018.
Even if a lawsuit in this case was filed after six months have passed thereafter, the interruption of prescription has no effect.