1. The Defendant’s KRW 180,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 22, 2015 to March 19, 2018.

1. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied a household to the defendant who operated the household's business until June 2012, and the price of the goods remains 180,000,000 won. The defendant prepared and delivered to the plaintiff a certificate of borrowing 180,000,000 won (hereinafter "the loan of this case") with respect to the obligation to pay the above goods to the plaintiff on March 21, 2014, it is recognized that the plaintiff and the defendant made a verbal agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on March 21, 2015 with the maturity of the loan of this case as of March 21, 2015 has no clear dispute between the parties. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the annual interest of 180,000,0000 won and the delayed interest rate of 15,000 won from March 22, 2015 to the date following the maturity.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s claim for the price of goods constitutes “price for the goods sold by the merchants” under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has already expired.

Therefore, even if a claim held by the Plaintiff against the Defendant constitutes a claim for the price of goods subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, it is reasonable to view that, as seen earlier, a quasi-loan contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 21, 2014 by preparing a loan certificate with the amount of the above goods borrowed as of March 21, 2014, for the purpose of a loan for consumption. In such a case, the Defendant is a person engaging in household sales, and the said quasi-loan contract is a merchant.