1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On February 1, 2003, the Plaintiff sold to the Defendant the 480,000 won of the price for the East Haak, which is a health-supporting food, for which 30,000 won of the price for the goods was paid from the Defendant on the same day. The fact that the remainder of the goods was paid in ten installments each month from February 15, 2003 to 45,000 won, and there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the unpaid price for the goods and damages for delay, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's defense of the cancellation of agreement was requested to return the above health assistance food to the plaintiff after drinking the above health assistance food once, and the plaintiff collected the above health assistance food from the defendant, so there is no evidence to acknowledge that the contract was terminated by agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, but the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The defendant's defense of the expiration of the extinctive prescription is a defense that the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods has expired by the statute of limitations. Thus, according to the whole purport of the statement and pleading No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods was the merchant selling health-support food and that the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods was the price for the goods sold by the merchant. Thus, the extinctive prescription of the above purchase price claim is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, and it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim for the purchase price of the goods was filed on September 21, 2009, which was three years after the expiration of the period.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods was already extinguished by prescription before the application for the instant payment order.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair and thus, it is revoked.