beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. From 2008 to 2013, the Plaintiff, upon expiration of the extinctive prescription, manufactured and supplied the Defendant with a total of 20,947,250N components of semiconductor gold, and received a total of 9,01,418N from the Defendant from 2010 to 2013, and sought payment from the Defendant of the total of 11,935,832 UN value of the remainder of the goods.
According to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, in the case of prices for products and goods sold by producers and merchants, the extinctive prescription is complete if the claim is not exercised for three years. It is evident in the record that the lawsuit in this case was filed on January 16, 2017 after three years from the date of the last delivery of the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff's claim for the price for goods has expired by the short term of three years.
2. The plaintiff asserts that, (i) whether the statute of limitations has been interrupted and the principle of trust and good faith has been violated, the plaintiff recognized the obligation to pay goods before the expiration of the statute of limitations and partly repaid the amount.
A debt approval as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription is established by indicating that the debtor who is a party to the benefit of prescription recognizes the existence of a right to the person who is to lose the right due to the completion of extinctive prescription, and the method of indication does not require any form, and it can be done in an implied manner without necessarily required. However, an implied approval indication should be made in such a way that the other party can be inferred by proving that the debtor is aware of the existence and amount of the debt, at least on the premise that the debtor is aware of the existence and amount of the debt.
(Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959 Decided February 17, 2005, etc.). However, the Defendant also recognized the fact that the Defendant paid the price of the goods to the Plaintiff from time to time by 2013 (Provided, That the Defendant asserts that the total amount of payment is KRW 10,831,654, supra).