1. The Defendant calculated 2,296,958 won with respect to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from March 6, 2013 to the date of full payment.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a specialized autopsy inspector who is entrusted with the inspection expenses by proxy and receives the inspection expenses. The defendant is an intention to operate the "C Council member" in the "C Council member" in the Bupyeong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council member B.

B. The Plaintiff, upon receiving a request from the Defendant, performed the inspection from September 2008 to May 2009, and did not receive KRW 2,296,958 out of the inspection expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 2,296,958 in the amount of inspection expenses and delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 6, 2013 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, on the records, from March 6, 2013 to the day following the day of the application for the instant payment order, to the day of full payment.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s claim for inspection expenses asserted by the Plaintiff is subject to the three-year short-term extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163(2) of the Civil Act with “the claim for medical treatment, labor, and preparation of medicines by doctors, midwifes, nurses, and pharmacists,” and even if not, the five-year extinctive prescription has already expired pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act.

B. In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim for inspection expenses on behalf of the Defendant, which is a medical doctor, cannot be viewed as “claim for medical treatment, labor, and preparation of medicines” of medical doctors, midwifes, nurses, and pharmacists.

In addition, since the Plaintiff claimed inspection expenses executed from September 2008 to May 2009, it is clear that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on Nov. 29, 2012, which was five years after the lapse of the period from September 2008.

Therefore, we cannot accept all the above arguments of the defendant.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.