beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid next shall be revoked.
2. The defendant.
Reasons
1. The fact that the Plaintiff, who engages in wholesale and retail business in the name of “C” in the judgment on the cause of the claim, provided the Defendant, who operates the “E” on December 20, 2008 and operates the 24,207,40 won for the sale of promotional items, etc., is not in dispute between the parties or is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount of KRW 24,207,40 and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The defendant asserts that he paid the price of the above goods to the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, so this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. Next, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim has expired by prescription.
The fact that the Plaintiff is the merchant is as seen earlier, and the claim for the price of the goods sold by the merchant is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription for three years. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on December 27, 2013 after three years from the date on which the goods were supplied, which was December 20, 2008, is apparent. However, according to the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to No. 1-2, it is recognized that the Defendant delivered to the Plaintiff two promissory notes with the face value of 12 million won per father D’s face value around August 10, 201, respectively.
Approval as a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription is established when the obligor, who is a party to the benefit of prescription, has indicated that he/she is aware of the existence of the right to the obligor or his/her agent, who is the party to the benefit of prescription. The method of indication does not require any form, but does not require any explicit impliedly, and the implied approval indication is based on the premise that the obligor is aware of the existence and amount of the obligation, and the obligor is aware of the obligation.