1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted from March 2007, upon the defendant's request, supplied goods to the marina operated by the defendant, and the defendant settled the price of goods from time to time.

On August 9, 2014, the defendant settled only KRW 2,00,000,000 and does not pay KRW 21,054,451.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 21,054,451 won and damages for delay payable to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription against the Plaintiff’s claim is based on the following: (a) the Defendant incorporation of the trade name, i.e., “redistribution of a stock company” on September 11, 2008; and (b) the change to the trade name as of July 30, 2009; (c) the price for the goods claimed by the Plaintiff was arising from the trade relationship with “persons who are under the elblus of a stock company.”

According to the above facts, it is estimated that the price for the goods claimed by the plaintiff was incurred from July 30, 2009 to September 26, 201. The fact that the plaintiff filed an application for payment order against the defendant on February 26, 2015, which was three years after the date of the above recognition, is significant in this court. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the price for the goods was expired.

The plaintiff re-fights that the defendant approved the debt with respect to the price of the goods in this case's oral repayment, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is not accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.