logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.23 2019나55844
물품대금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the following determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added to this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(2) On February 29, 2016, prior to the completion of the extinctive prescription period, the Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations of the claim for the outstanding amount was interrupted since there is no sufficient evidence to acknowledge the claim for the outstanding amount, and even if the claim for the outstanding amount is recognized, the Defendant’s waiver of the statute of limitations period cannot be deemed to have expired.

However, as seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize the existence of the outstanding claim solely by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Even if the claim for the outstanding amount is recognized, the Plaintiff asserts that the outstanding amount is a claim for the price of goods that occurred in 2012. Thus, even if the Defendant approved the outstanding amount as alleged in the Plaintiff’s assertion after the three-year extinctive prescription has expired, the recognition of the outstanding amount cannot be applied as a ground for interrupting extinctive prescription, and it cannot be deemed that there was a transaction relationship even after 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

In addition, even if there were claims that were not yet completed at the time of February 29, 2016 or around 2017, the Defendant approved the Defendant’s liability for the accounts receivable in the course of the instant lawsuit, around February 29, 2016.

There is no sufficient evidence to deem that the Defendant, on its own initiative, recognized the existence and amount of the outstanding amount of the instant case against the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion.

arrow