Whether the sales proceeds of the NACF constitute a short-term extinctive prescription claim under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act

The Agricultural Cooperatives Federation is not a merchant in light of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, and since the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation is not a person who directly produces a house which is the object of the sale of this case, the claim for sales proceeds of this case by the Agricultural Cooperatives Federation does not constitute "the price for products and products sold by producers and merchants" under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act.

Article 163 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 76Da1865 delivered on February 22, 1977

Agricultural Cooperatives Federation

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (73 Gohap1774) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 76Da1865 Delivered on February 22, 1977

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,156,00 and the amount of KRW 30% per annum from October 26, 1969 to January 16, 1972, KRW 5% per annum, and KRW 31% per annum from August 17 to August 2 of the same year, and KRW 25% per annum from March of the same month to the date of full payment.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The above prize money sources may be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

In light of Gap evidence No. 2 without dispute as to the establishment of the whole document Gap evidence No. 4-1,2,3 non-party 1's testimony of non-party 1, which is presumed to be the whole document's authenticity, and considering the above witness's testimony, non-party 2, 3, 4, and non-party 5's testimony, non-party 6's non-party 5's testimony, non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 6's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-6's non-party 6'.

The Defendants’ legal representative did not seem to have repaid the remaining amount under the above contract, and the Defendants, a joint and several surety under the above contract to sell and purchase the above house, who were the joint and several surety of Nonparty 6, were not well aware of the Plaintiff. Thus, Nonparty 6 requested to replace the joint and several surety with Nonparty 10, who had been a guarantor in transactions between the Plaintiff and Nonparty 6 for a long time, and the above Nonparty 6 issued the promissory note to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Nonparty 6, as the issuance and delivery of the above promissory note, claimed that the Defendants’ joint and several surety was exempted from the Defendants’ liability as joint and several surety, and thus, Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 10 did not have any dispute over the establishment of the above contract, and thus, Nonparty 6 and Nonparty 10 did not accept the above agreement to pay the remaining amount of KRW 8,156,000,00 from the date of the above contract to the 2039,000,000 won per 16th day of the above payment of the promissory note.

Then, the defendants' legal representative argued that the plaintiff's claim for the sales proceeds of this case against the non-party 6 was extinguished by the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code. Since the claims under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code provide that the plaintiff shall be the producer and the merchant's price for the products and the products sold by the producer and merchant, according to the above evidence No. 1, the plaintiff's plaintiff's central association cannot be viewed as the producer of this case's house, because the plaintiff's central association cannot be viewed as the producer of this case's house, and pursuant to Article 5 of the Agricultural Cooperatives Act, the plaintiff's central association's maximum service without discrimination against the members in its business, and the profits of some members shall not be carried out for profit-making or speculative business, and even if the plaintiff's central association falls under the commercial activities as part of the business, the plaintiff's central association's products and the plaintiff's commercial union's products become non-party 6's products and the plaintiff's products.

Ultimately, the defendant et al. is jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the agreed delay damages at the rate of 36% per annum from October 26, 1969 to January 16, 1972, with the agreed delay damages at the rate of 5% per annum from January 17, 1972 to August 2, 1972, and the agreed delay damages at the rate of 31% per annum from August 3, 1972 to the full payment rate of 25% per annum from August 3, 1972 to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim shall be justified. The original judgment is unfair in conclusion, and the provisional execution order shall be decided as per Disposition by Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judge Jeon Byung-hee (Presiding Judge)