1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,20,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 25, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. Around September 30, 2009, the Plaintiff engaged in a construction equipment leasing business as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, under the trade name “B”, “B,” the Plaintiff is liable to pay the Defendant, who is engaged in real estate consulting and civil engineering work, 33 million won (including value-added tax), a wheel frame construction equipment equivalent to 1.8 million won out of the above equipment cost on November 6, 2009. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is liable to pay the remainder equipment cost of 31.2 million won (33 million won - 1.8 million won) and damages for delay.

2. Determination on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserted that on November 6, 2009, the plaintiff paid KRW 1.8 million to the plaintiff, and that the cost of equipment was settled, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

This part of the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim for the cost of equipment of this case is a claim for usage fees, and the short-term extinctive prescription of three years is applied pursuant to Article 163(1) of the Civil Act, and that the Plaintiff’s claim of this case was filed three years after September 30, 2009, and that the statute of limitations expired.

According to Article 163 subparagraph 1 of the Civil Code, interest, support fees, salaries, usage fees, and other claims for the purpose of the payment of money or other things within a period of not more than one year, if they are not exercised for three years, the extinctive prescription expires. Here, “claims for a period of not more than one year” refers to claims for a fixed period of not more than one year (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da65821, Feb. 22, 2007). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the claim for the payment of the instant equipment is a claim for a fixed period of not more than one year.

Ultimately, the claim for the cost of equipment of this case constitutes a general commercial claim that all the plaintiffs and the defendant constituted a merchant, and thus, the five-year extinctive prescription is applied pursuant to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case