beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3 as well as the entire arguments, the plaintiff supplied abnormal materials to the defendant who is engaged in the production of paper boxes from February 23, 2015 to November 18, 2015. The defendant paid KRW 22,649,00 to the plaintiff on December 2, 2015, and the defendant did not pay the price for the goods thereafter, thereby recognizing the fact that there remains KRW 45,918,748 as the plaintiff's claim for the price for the goods against the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 45,918,748 as well as delay damages.
As the plaintiff supplied the last goods to the defendant on November 5, 2015, the defendant raised a defense that the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the defendant was extinguished due to the completion of prescription.
Unless there are special circumstances, the extinctive prescription period is three years for claims for the payment of credit incurred under the contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for continuous supply of goods individually from the time of occurrence of each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, supra). The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant constitutes “price for the products and goods sold by producers and merchants” under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act.
As seen earlier, the Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant from February 23, 2015 to November 18, 2015. Since it is apparent in the record that the instant payment order was filed on December 18, 2018, which was three years after November 18, 2015, after the date on which the payment order was issued, the Defendant filed an application for the instant payment order to the Plaintiff on December 18, 2018, the final payment order was filed three years after the payment order was issued to the Plaintiff even as of December 2, 2015.
The plaintiff's claim for the price of goods against the defendant was extinguished by the expiration of the extinctive prescription.
At the second date for pleading in 2015, the agent of the plaintiff sent letters demanding the defendant's auditor D to pay goods.