1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As between November 16, 201 and September 7, 2012, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with goods, such as satus satus trees, to the Defendant during the sales business of wood materials.

B. The Plaintiff received KRW 97,240,00 from October 31, 2012, an aggregate of the goods price of KRW 105,902,240 during the said period, and did not receive the remainder of KRW 8,62,240.

C. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a tax invoice stating the remaining amount of KRW 8,662,240 to the Defendant who received the said goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 8,662,240 to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. (1) The judgment on the grounds of extinctive prescription is based on the defense that the Defendant extinguished the extinctive prescription period, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff supplied the instant goods to the Defendant while operating the sales business of wood materials. As such, the remainder of the claim for the payment of goods constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchants, the extinctive prescription period is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. According to the evidence No. 5, the Defendant’s payment of part of the price for the goods on October 31, 2012 can be acknowledged. The record shows that the Defendant received the payment order of this case on December 21, 2016, which was three years after the date on which the written application for the payment order of this case was filed. Thus, the Defendant’s defense is well-grounded.

(2) On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff issued an electronic tax invoice amounting to the remainder of the goods price to the Defendant. The Defendant approved the remainder of the goods price by filing a final purchase tax invoice on the Plaintiff’s above sales declaration in 2014. As such, the statute of limitations was interrupted.