1. Plaintiff 1, among the parts against the Defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance, falls under the following amounts:

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is called the fourth decision of the court of first instance.

In addition to the parts of paragraph (2) above, since the reasoning for the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the defendant, it shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

D. (1) The judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription is that the transaction of goods between the Plaintiff and the Jinsung was terminated on February 1, 201, and around that time, the period during which the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods related to the truth was due. However, since the instant lawsuit was filed on December 2, 2014 after the expiration of the three-year short-term extinctive prescription period, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods related to the truth was extinguished by prescription.

(2) The fact that the transaction of goods between the Plaintiff and the Jinsung was terminated on February 1, 201 is as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the truth falls under the price of goods sold by the merchant (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act) and the short-term extinctive prescription is applied for three years. However, the fact that the payment order filed against the Plaintiff against the truth became final and conclusive on June 1, 2012 is as seen earlier. Accordingly, the extinctive prescription period of the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods is suspended and the period of extinctive prescription is extended to ten years as well as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit prior to the expiration of ten years from that date is apparent, and therefore, this part of the Defendant’s

In regard to this, the defendant and the defendant are jointly and severally liable in relation to the above goods payment obligation, and the grounds for suspending extinctive prescription against one of the vicarious debtors jointly and severally liable do not affect other debtors, so the effect of the above payment order decision does not extend to the defendant. However, the above payment order was issued on June 1, 2012, which was prior to October 16, 2012 when the defendant completed the registration of division and merger.