1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from March 26, 2016 to the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, to the day of complete payment, as the Plaintiff was awarded a contract with the Defendant for KRW 3,300,000 for the signboard construction of the vain Huum Duump Huump Huump Huumump Huumump Huump Huump 18, 2012.

2. The defendant's assertion asserts that the plaintiff's claim for construction price has expired due to the completion of prescription.

In this case, the period of extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of construction work in this case was completed on or around June 18, 2012, and the fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order on February 11, 2016, which was three years thereafter, is clear that the record and the calendar of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment order in this case is apparent.

However, according to the evidence No. 4 and evidence No. 6-5, the defendant sent to the plaintiff, on January 9, 2014 and March 24, 2015, a certificate of content that the plaintiff was unable to pay the construction price to the plaintiff on the ground that he did not receive the construction price from the original contractor. The purport of the above certificate of content is that the plaintiff was unable to pay the construction price due to the failure to receive it from the original contractor on the premise that he was liable for the payment of the construction price to the plaintiff, and it is reasonable to deem that the defendant approved the obligation corresponding to the waiver of the statute of limitations interest with respect to the construction cost and the obligation

Therefore, the plaintiff's second defense pointing this out is with merit, and the defendant's second defense is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is consistent with this.