1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff traded agricultural products with the Defendant from 2005 to 2018. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,627,90 for the goods that the Plaintiff failed to supply to the Plaintiff by March 6, 2017 (i.e., KRW 15,626,100 from January 26, 2015 to March 6, 2017) and delay damages therefor.

2. Determination

A. Each description of KRW 15,626,100 (1) price of goods up to January 26, 2015 is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff failed to supply goods to the Defendant from around 2005 to January 26, 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact that the price of goods supplied to the Defendant was 15,626,100.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(2) As to the statute of limitations defense, (A) even if the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the above goods is recognized, the Defendant’s objection to the statute of limitations is considered as a defense.

(B) Since the price for the goods claimed by the Plaintiff from around 2005 to January 26, 2015 is a claim that occurred from January 2015 and the due date for each of the above claims is when the Plaintiff supplies the goods to the Defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the due date for each claim for the price for the goods has arrived at around the time when the Plaintiff supplies

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940 Decided January 25, 2007). However, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods alleged by the Plaintiff constitutes the price for the products and goods sold by the producer and merchant, and thus, the extinctive prescription is complete if it is not exercised for three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment order of this case is apparent in the record that it was filed on June 15, 2018, which was three years after the time when the goods were supplied, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods had already expired

(C) On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff discontinued transactions with the Defendant, but the Defendant was on September 23, 2017, before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.