1. The defendant paid KRW 2,718,50 to the plaintiff and 6% per annum from February 21, 2020 to July 7, 2020.

1. Case summary and judgment

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers) and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the fact that the plaintiff, who runs the business of wholesale in freezing freezing food, supplied the defendant, who runs the restaurant business from January 2, 2016 to February 25, 2017, a total amount of KRW 9,364,514 (raw materials, such as raw chickens) equivalent to the total amount of KRW 65,76,914, the defendant paid the total amount of KRW 65,76,914 (the last day is around January 25, 2017).

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 33,597,60 (= KRW 99,364,514 – KRW 65,766,914), barring any special circumstance.

However, in consideration of the goods sold by the merchant, the extinctive prescription is complete unless it is exercised for three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. The extinctive prescription is completed individually from the time each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurred, barring any special circumstances, and the extinctive prescription is not calculated in a lump sum from the date of termination of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992; 2006Da68940, Jan. 25, 2007). Of the Plaintiff’s claim, it is determined that the extinctive prescription has already expired three years prior to the date of the instant lawsuit ( February 12, 2020) from the date of the Plaintiff’s claim.

C. Therefore, the defendant is 2,718,50 won (Evidence A 3) accrued from February 14, 2017 to February 25, 2017 among the price of the goods unpaid to the plaintiff and 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case is served by the plaintiff as to the existence or scope of the defendant's obligation, from February 21, 2020 until July 7, 2020, which is reasonable to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation.