beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of goods to the Defendant from around 2011 to March 7, 2016, and the amount of the goods was paid from April 7, 2016, and the amount of the goods unpaid until the time was recognized as the cause of 64,805,919. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 64,805,919 and delay damages.
2. The defendant's defense is asserted that the plaintiff's claim for the above goods against the defendant has expired by prescription. Thus, Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act applies to the above goods payment claim, and the period of extinctive prescription is three years. The defendant's defense is acknowledged as follows: the final date the plaintiff received the original goods from the plaintiff was March 7, 2016 and the final date the plaintiff paid the goods to the plaintiff was April 7, 2016. The plaintiff's lawsuit in this case was filed on May 10, 2019, which was three years after the lawsuit in this case was filed by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's claim for the above goods payment has already expired by prescription before the lawsuit in this case was filed. Thus, the defendant's defense is justified.
On April 7, 2016, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant approved the obligation by promising the payment of the goods to the plaintiff even after the last payment of the goods price was made. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff's second defense cannot be accepted.
In addition to the defense of extinctive prescription, the defendant argued that there was a defect in the original company supplied by the plaintiff and caused damage to the plaintiff. However, as long as the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is accepted, the defendant's assertion of damage caused by the above defect is not determined.
3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.