1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2005, the Defendant agreed to pay the above price within two months when purchasing the amount equivalent to KRW 396,000 for earth and sand from B, a merchant.

B. On March 24, 2010, B transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the payment of the goods amounting to KRW 385,117,000 against the Defendant, including the claim for the payment of the price of the earth and sand as above against the Defendant, and B, on December 13, 2010, notified the Defendant of the transfer of the above claim against the Defendant with the content certification.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the above acquisition amount of KRW 396,00 and delay damages therefor to the plaintiff. However, the defendant's defense that the above acquisition amount claim has expired by prescription. Thus, according to the above basic facts, the above acquisition amount claim's nature is the same as that of the above purchase price claim against the defendant in Eul, so the three-year short-term extinctive prescription (Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act) and at least five-year commercial extinctive prescription shall apply. Thus, the lawsuit in this case is filed on November 12, 2005 (the date two months elapsed from September 12, 2005), which is five years after the payment date of the above purchase price of goods (the date on which September 14, 2010). Thus, the above acquisition price claim has expired by prescription.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance with different conclusions is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.