1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. According to the reasoning of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, who runs a wholesale business of materials annexed to the salary, supplied the defendant, who runs a trade business of materials annexed to the clothing from May 2, 2014 to December 31, 2014, with the goods equivalent to the total of KRW 47,319,118 won of the goods annexed to the clothing, etc., and the defendant paid KRW 44,987,840 to the plaintiff out of the above goods price. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining goods price to the plaintiff and delay damages.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant has a defense that the payment for the goods was fully repaid and the damage was incurred due to the defects of the original body supplied by the plaintiff, and that the above claim for the payment for the goods had already expired three years after the date of delivery.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods constitutes a price for goods sold by a merchant, and the extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and the claim for the price of goods arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods, barring any special circumstance, runs individually from the time when each claim for the price of goods occurred due to an individual transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). It is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods occurred until December 31, 2014, and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on April 17, 2019, which was three

Therefore, the above claim for the price of goods had already expired before the instant lawsuit was filed.

As such, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription that points out is justified.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that since the Plaintiff interfered with the Plaintiff’s exercise of rights by deception that the Defendant caused defects in the goods, the extinctive prescription of the above claim for the price of goods runs from March 2019, recognizing the fact of deception.

Extinctive prescription shall become effective upon the occurrence of rights.