1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the records on the legitimacy of the subsequent appeal, since the documents of lawsuit, including a copy of the complaint of the first instance, and the original copy of the judgment, are served to the defendant by means of service by public notice, and the defendant becomes aware of the fact that the defendant was not aware of the lawsuit of this case and the judgment of the first instance, and submitted the subsequent subsequent appeal within two weeks, the appeal of this case is lawful.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. From January 1, 2011 to September 6, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied Paint and accessory materials to the Defendant from January 1, 201, to September 6, 2011 (the Plaintiff asserted that in preparatory documents dated February 7, 2017, July 18, 2012).

However, the defendant did not pay 6,957,800 won to the plaintiff until now.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above goods priceing KRW 6,957,800 and damages for delay.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant as alleged in the foregoing claim, and there is no other clear evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Even if the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant, the claim for the payment of goods claimed by the Plaintiff is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription of three years pursuant to Article 163 of the Civil Act as a claim for the payment of goods supplied by the Plaintiff, a merchant, and the claim for the payment order by the Plaintiff can be recognized as being February 19, 201 as the time when the Plaintiff supplied the goods to the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods claimed by the Plaintiff was terminated by the short-term extinctive prescription of February 19, 2014 when three years elapsed from February 19, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant's argument pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's argument is without merit.

As to this, the plaintiff is the last trading day of the plaintiff and the defendant, July 18, 2012, and the mother of the defendant from time to time.