1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the wholesale and retail business of fishery products. The Defendant is an individual entrepreneur who runs the wholesale and retail business of fishery products in the trade name called “B.”

B. The Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with the total amount of KRW 107,214,150 from May 2012 to December 1 of the same year, but the outstanding amount continuously occurred, and the Defendant closed down on May 1, 2013.

C. The Defendant finally paid to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 2,50,000 on May 16, 2013, and the outstanding amount that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant remains 75,082,850 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 73,683,400 won and damages for delay, which the plaintiff seeks, out of the amount of goods unpaid to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s claim on the completion of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim on the outstanding amount of this case had already been terminated by the short-term three years statute of limitations, and thus, it constitutes a consideration for the goods sold by the Plaintiff, a merchant, and thus, the extinctive prescription is complete unless exercised for three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act. The Plaintiff supplied fishery products to the Defendant until December 2012, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 2,500,000 out of the outstanding amount. The Defendant filed a lawsuit in this case on March 16, 2017, which had to reach the expiration of three years thereafter. As such, the extinctive prescription of the outstanding amount claims in this case had already expired.

The defendant's defense is justified.

C. On January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the interruption of extinctive prescription against the Defendant to discontinue the extinctive prescription of the outstanding claim of this case.