1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Evidence A Nos. 1 through 3 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is a company that processes or manufactures and sells concrete pumps parts. The Defendant runs a construction business, such as pumps leasing business, with the trade name “C”. The Plaintiff supplied pipes and ancillary materials to the Seoul Seocho-gu D site at the Defendant’s request on October 20, 2012, and on June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied pipes and ancillary materials to the Seoul Seocho-gu D site. As of June 3, 2015, it can be acknowledged that the outstanding amount was 11,621,000.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant, as a result of the payment date, KRW 11,621,00 for unpaid goods and its payment date, barring any other special circumstances, applies to the case where the first instance court's pleading has not been concluded at the time of the enforcement of the above Decree pursuant to Article 2 (2) of the Addenda of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which was promulgated on May 21, 2019 and enforced on June 1, 2019, as the date following the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant, as requested by the plaintiff, is obviously 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from February 26, 2019 to the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the defendant. Thus, the statutory interest rate of the existing 15% shall apply

shall be liable to pay damages for delay calculated in proportion to the ratio of such damages.

2. The Defendant asserts that the claim for the price of goods in this case was subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 of the Civil Act, and the Defendant on June 30, 2015, but appears to be a clerical error on June 3, 2015.

The plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has expired on June 3, 2018 after three years passed since June 3, 2018, and the plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has ceased due to the defendant's approval of debt.

As the instant goods-price claim shall be subject to the short-term extinctive prescription for three years pursuant to Article 163 of the Civil Act (Article 163 Subparag. 6 of the Civil Act), barring any special circumstance, it shall be from June 3, 2015.