1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,415,800 for the Plaintiff and its related KRW 5% per annum from August 11, 2018 to October 15, 2018; and (b) October 2018.

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination of the cause of the claim, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff engaged in the manufacturing industry, such as transformerr and electronic apparatus, supplied goods to the defendant who was engaged in the wholesale and retail business of sound apparatus and did not receive the price of KRW 31,415,800. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Civil Act from Aug. 11, 2018 to Oct. 15, 2018, which is clearly recorded that the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case from Aug. 11, 2018 to Oct. 15, 2018.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the price of goods claimed by the plaintiff has expired.

The extinctive prescription is three years with respect to the claim for the price of the instant goods sold by merchants, and the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed around August 14, 2018 after three years from November 13, 2014, which appears to be that the Defendant paid part of the price last, is apparent in the record.

However, in full view of the statement and the purport of the whole argument as to No. 1, the plaintiff demanded the payment of the goods even after the transaction with the defendant was terminated, and it is recognized that the defendant himself made the statement to the effect that "if the plaintiff demanded the payment, he shall make a full payment at that time" in this court. This is considered to have continuously approved the defendant's obligation to pay the goods to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's argument is without merit.

Furthermore, the defendant has already discontinued his/her business and has no means to repay to the plaintiff, but such circumstance alone refuses the plaintiff's claim.