1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is that, except when using “attached Form 1.” as “attached Form 6, 6, 13” in the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part of the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court shall accept it in accordance

According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of claim, the defendant did not pay KRW 28,908,682,690 (including value-added tax) for the goods of this case pursuant to the contract for the manufacture and supply of electrical machinery concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Thus, barring special circumstances, the above KRW 28,908,682,690 and the attached Form among them are attached thereto.

1. Each "amount payable" in the statement of accounts receivable shall be liable to pay damages for delay from the day after the corresponding date to the day of full payment as to the amount stated in the same table.

The contract for the manufacture and supply of the medium-term electrical machine between the original defendant in the judgment on the defendant's defense, etc. constitutes a contract for the manufacture and supply of the subject matter as an accessory to the contract, and thus the three-year short-term extinctive prescription period under Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act is applied to the claim

However, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 7, 2013 after around three years and eight months from July 7, 2009, which was the final payment date of the above goods price claim, and the said goods price claim expired by prescription.

Judgment

On the other hand, approval as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription is established by expressing that an obligor, who is a party to the extinctive prescription benefit, would lose the right due to the completion of the extinctive prescription period, or his/her agent, is aware of the existence of such right. The method of indication does not require any form and only implied method is sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da38661, Nov. 13, 1998). Even if the claim for the price of the goods of this case is applied by the short-term extinctive prescription for three years, as alleged by the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, the evidence 2 of