1. Defendant A’s KRW 76,182,250 as well as 5% per annum from November 11, 2014 to August 17, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. By 2011, the Plaintiff supplied agricultural products, etc. to the individual enterprise C operated by Defendant A, and the outstanding amount remains 76,182,250 won.

B. After that, the Plaintiff was engaged in the transaction of supplying agricultural products, etc. with the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) whose said C was converted into a corporation. The price was paid in full.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 6, Eul evidence 3 (including provisional number), the purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim (1) against Defendant A, the defendant A is obligated to pay the remaining outstanding amount to the plaintiff 76,182,250 won and damages for delay.

(2) Defendant A’s claim for the extinctive prescription period of Defendant A’s claim (A) is subject to the three-year extinctive prescription period. Defendant A’s claim that the three-year extinctive prescription period was expired on October 20, 201, when calculating the calendar from October 20, 201, the three-year period was calculated as the calendar from October 20, 201 when the Plaintiff applied for a payment order.

Since Defendant A’s obligation to pay the above goods is subject to the extinctive prescription period of three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, Defendant A’s obligation to pay the goods is deemed to have expired after the lapse of three years from October 20, 201, when the period of extinctive prescription was three years from October 20, 201, which was three years prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiff’s application for the payment order. As such, Defendant A’s above assertion is with merit.

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the period of extinctive prescription was interrupted, since Defendant A made the final partial repayment on March 20, 2012 in a continuous transaction relationship.

In full view of the purport of evidence evidence No. 7, Defendant A’s payment of KRW 17,10,000,000, and KRW 10,000,00 on February 14, 2012, and KRW 15,00,000 on March 15, 2012, and KRW 2,00,00,00 on March 20, 2012, even after the transaction with the Plaintiff was terminated. Accordingly, Defendant A’s payment of KRW 2,00,00,00 is recognized.