1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. A. Around 2009, the Plaintiff, who sells pesticides, nutritional agents, etc. with the trade name of “C,” entered into a contract for the supply of goods with the Defendant for the supply of pesticides, nutritional agents, etc., and agreed to supply the goods at the end of the pertinent year as the Defendant requested for the supply and pay the price after settlement of accounts. 2) The Plaintiff: (a) from April 13, 2009 to November 14, 2009 to KRW 10,364,70; (b) from March 11, 2010 to November 26, 2010 to KRW 20,315,960; (c) from March 3, 2011 to KRW 360 to KRW 364,750; and (d) supplied the goods from each of the Defendant’s goods to KRW 3065,740 and KRW 4750; and (e) supplied the goods to be supplied from each of the Defendant’s goods to be supplied to KRW 3063630,540.

【Evidence Evidence A(including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

each entry of No. 8, D's testimony of witnesses of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid amount of KRW 44,374,650 and damages for delay after May 21, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that the goods actually supplied by the plaintiff are less than the amount of supply recognized earlier, and the unit price thereof is less than the amount of supply recognized earlier. However, there is no circumstance to reject the credibility of the transaction account books (Evidence A 1) prepared and submitted by the plaintiff, and the above transaction account books are recognized as the fact of supplying the goods above. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The Defendant filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of three years from December 19, 201, which was the date of the final occurrence of the claim for the payment of the above goods, and thus, the remainder of the claim is all remaining.