1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff supplied goods, such as printing paper, to the Defendant from around 2009 to September 1, 2010, and entered into a continuous transaction relationship.

B. On October 29, 2010, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the price of goods at any time and completed the final repayment on October 29, 2010, and did not pay the Plaintiff the remainder of the price of goods at KRW 31,815,072 to the Defendant.

C. On November 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the payment of the remainder of the goods price with this Court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the whole purport of pleading

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the price of the goods and damages for delay to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's defense of the expiration of the extinctive prescription is proved to have expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

The Plaintiff’s claim on the price of goods shall be subject to a short-term extinctive prescription of three years pursuant to Article 166 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. The claim on the price of goods that occurred under a continuous contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the supply of goods, such as a contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, shall not be deemed to have been extinguished individually from the time when each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurred, barring any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, Jan. 25, 2007), and it shall not be deemed that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim on the price of goods has expired simultaneously from the date when the transaction was terminated (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, Sept. 25, 2017). The Plaintiff’s claim on the price of goods was filed on Sept. 1, 2016, which was the date three years elapsed since September 1, 2010.

I would like to say.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

4. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.