1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute between the parties to the determination as to the cause of the claim, the entries in Gap's Evidence Nos. 1 through 2 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the reply of the submission of the tax information to the director of the North Daegu Tax Office of this Court by the North Daegu Tax Office, the fact that the livestock farming association corporation (hereinafter "the plaintiff") was dissolved on September 27, 2016 and the plaintiff was established, the plaintiff runs the meat packaging wholesale retail business, and the defendant operates the meat wholesale retail business with the trade name "B".

The Plaintiff supplied meat to the Defendant by June 25, 2013, however, asserted that the Defendant did not pay KRW 37,382,673 to the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant did not clearly dispute this. Therefore, the Defendant is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 37,382,673, and damages for delay calculated from June 26, 2013, which is the day following the date on which the Plaintiff finally supplied meat.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense as to the expiration of the extinctive prescription is that the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods has expired.

According to the facts established earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods constitutes “price for the goods sold by the merchant” and the extinctive prescription expires if it is not exercised within three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. It is apparent that the final due date for the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods is the same as that of June 25, 2013 where the Plaintiff supplied the meat last, and it is apparent that the Plaintiff’s claim was filed on August 16, 2016, which was three years after the

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of goods has already expired before the lawsuit of this case, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. The plaintiff's second defense is first determined, and the plaintiff's second defense is first determined.