1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 53,487,00, and 5% per annum from April 25, 2017 to October 31, 2017.

1. The judgment on the cause of the claim is recognized based on the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff engaged in the wholesale and retail business of fish and shellfish in the trade name of “D”; (b) the Defendant C engaged in the business of “F” in Seosan-si; and (c) the Defendant B, as the husband of the Defendant C, actually operates the above “F”; and (d) the Plaintiff supplied the Defendants with deep-flosing and salted fishing in an amount of KRW 53,487,000 from around 209 to October 22, 2016, either there is no dispute between the parties or the entire purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence No. 1, 2, and 3.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 53,487,00 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from April 25, 2017 to October 31, 2017, which is the day after the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, to October 31, 2017, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. First of all, the determination on the expiration of the extinctive prescription and the defense of repayment, the Defendants asserted that the three-year extinctive prescription has expired pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, pursuant to the goods payment claim that occurred until April 13, 2014, which was three years prior to the date of the filing of the instant lawsuit, and the payment for goods that the Plaintiff repaid was appropriated for the repayment of the goods

In a case where several monetary obligations exist due to continuous monetary transactions between the same parties, as long as a partial performance of an obligation is made as part of the obligation, interruption of prescription shall take effect as to the whole of the obligation. If several monetary obligations exist due to continuous transactions between the same parties, and where an obligor has discharged as part of the obligation the entire obligation, barring any special circumstances, it shall be deemed that a partial performance of an obligation has been effected with respect to the existing several obligations, barring special circumstances.