1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion and C Co., Ltd. concluded a comprehensive transfer and takeover agreement on September 2016, and upon which C Co., Ltd acquired the Plaintiff’s goods price obligations against the Defendant.

In addition, most of the goods payment obligations arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant until August 2016, the extinctive prescription has expired before the Defendant institutes a lawsuit.

Therefore, compulsory execution based on the defendant's decision of performance recommendation against the plaintiff should not be allowed.

2. Determination

A. A. A third party who made a judgment on the assertion of the assumption of the obligation with immunity takes over the obligation by a contract with the obligor and discharges the obligor’s obligation, takes effect only upon the consent of the obligee (Article 454 of the Civil Act). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to deem that the Defendant consented to the Plaintiff’s discharge, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the assumption of an obligation between the Plaintiff and C is effective only as a joint assumption of an obligation or a performance assumption against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff does not exempt the obligation. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The claim for the price of goods in this case, which is determined as to the claim for extinctive prescription, falls under the price of goods sold by a merchant, and thus, if it is not exercised within three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription expires. However, in a case where several claims relations with the same kind are established due to continuous transactions between the same parties, and where an obligor partly performs the same kind of goods without designating a specific obligation, the extinctive prescription can be acknowledged by deeming

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da64793, Jan. 23, 2014). The fact that the Defendant continuously supplied goods to the Plaintiff by August 31, 2016 is no dispute between the parties, and the description of the evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings are all made.