1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a system supply service contract with the defendant on September 30, 2005 with the service cost of KRW 230,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and completed the service accordingly, but did not receive any balance of KRW 75,90,000 (including value-added tax) from the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a balance of KRW 75,90,000 and damages for delay.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment asserts that the above service-price claim has ceased to exist over the five-year commercial extinctive prescription period.

Comprehensively taking account of the above evidence, the remaining amount of KRW 75,900,000 (including value-added tax) out of the service price is determined to be paid as of the date of completion of the examination after the system development is completed (Article 6 of the contract). If the Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff of the 15-day period after the system supply, it shall be deemed that the system was completed on the day following the date when the above period has elapsed (Article 7(1) and (2) of the contract). The fact that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the completion of the service development and sent a written confirmation of the examination on January 15, 207, but the Defendant did not give any notice to the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts, the above system supply service contract between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a commercial activity and thus, the five-year statute of limitations under Article 64 of the Commercial Act applies to the above service-price claim. As such, the due date for payment of the above service-price claim arrives from January 15, 2007 to 15 days after the plaintiff sent a system development product and a tally confirmation to the defendant. It is apparent in the record that the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case on July 28, 2014, which is five years after the plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the above service-price claim has already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.