1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim, or the Plaintiff, who is engaged in the wholesale business of the machine, brick, and block, the retail business of building materials, etc., sells construction materials, including 21,443,60 won, to the Defendant around the beginning of January 2012. The Defendant, on March 6, 2012, issued and delivered a payment note (hereinafter “instant payment note”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay 21,443,600 won for the machine and material and pay 20% interest per annum” to the Plaintiff on March 10, 2012.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the material price of KRW 21,443,600 and delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

(hereinafter “instant claim”). 2. The Defendant’s defense against the Defendant is a defense that the extinctive prescription of the instant claim has expired and has expired.

According to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, the extinctive prescription of prices for products and goods sold by producers and merchants shall expire unless they are exercised for three years.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is a merchant engaged in the wholesale business of a machine, brick, and block, retail business of building materials, etc. As such, the instant claim constitutes “price for goods sold by a merchant” and thus, the extinctive prescription expires when it is not exercised for three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act.

The facts that the period of repayment of the instant letter of payment was March 10, 2012 are recognized as above, and the instant suit is apparent in the record that was filed on June 12, 2015 with the lapse of three years from March 10, 2012, when the period of repayment was three years from March 10, 2012, when the instant letter of payment was due. Thus, the instant claim is deemed to have expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, and the Defendant’s defense is with merit.

The plaintiff asserts that the claim of this case is subject to the five-year Commercial Extinctive Prescription as stipulated by Article 64 of the Commercial Code, but it is different according to the latter part of Article 64 of the Commercial Code.