1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 8 (including the virtual number) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff sold fishery products to the defendant from April 2009 to December 23, 201, and the outstanding amount which was not received is KRW 32,278,550 (hereinafter "the price of the goods in this case"). Barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the price of the goods in this case 32,278,550 and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's defense is defense that the defendant's claim for the purchase price of the goods of this case expired by prescription.

In light of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-1 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is a stock company with the main business of wholesale business, etc. and sold fishery products to the defendant as part of the above business. Thus, the claim for the price of the goods of this case constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchant and its extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, a claim for the price of goods arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods ought to individually proceed with the extinctive prescription from the time each claim for the price of goods arising from an individual transaction occurred (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). The claim for the price of goods in this case occurred until December 23, 2011, and it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case was filed on April 3, 2018, which was three years after the lawsuit in this case was filed. Thus, the claim for the price of goods in this case had already expired before the lawsuit

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. On or after December 23, 201, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the instant goods payment obligation after the final transaction with the Defendant, and the Defendant requested the postponement of payment while approving the instant goods payment obligation. As such, the instant goods payment claim was approved.