1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments by Gap evidence 1-1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant did not work for the labor research institute and did not intend or have ability to pay the price even if the goods were supplied on credit in light of the situation of the debt at the time, etc., the defendant, even though he did not work for the labor research institute and did not have the intent or ability to pay the price, the plaintiff, around January 26, 2005, stated that "the plaintiff, while working for the innovation team of the Korea Labor Research Institute at the Republic of Korea, is a gift with the right of cultural products handled by the party in substitution for the right of cultural products handled by the party, shall be a good gift. The same shall apply to the case where the right of cultural products is supplied on credit, and therefore, it is recognized that the plaintiff is supplied with the total amount of KRW 240,192,000 and KRW 4050 by 34 times in total from January 26, 2005 to November 28.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant shall be deemed to have fraudulently obtained the amount equivalent to the above cultural product right by deceiving the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant shall be obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the above cultural product right price and damages for delay due to the tort unless there are special circumstances

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription has expired by prescription.

A claim for damages due to a tort shall expire three years after the victim becomes aware of the damage or the perpetrator, or ten years after the date when the damage or the tortfeasor was committed.

(Article 766 of the Civil Act). According to the facts seen earlier, the date when the Defendant’s tort was finally terminated is November 28, 2005, and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was instituted on November 2, 2018 after the lapse of 10 years from that time.

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to claim damages has expired by prescription.

B. As to the plaintiff's assertion 1, the plaintiff is the defendant.