Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following order for payment shall be revoked, and

1. The Plaintiff, until July 4, 2012, supplied the Defendant with goods, such as dental materials, and received part of the price for the goods from the Defendant until September 28, 2012. As of September 28, 2012, the fact that the price for the goods that the Plaintiff did not receive from the Defendant was 64,023,70 does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 64,023,70 and damages for delay from September 29, 2012, following the date of the final repayment.

2. The defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is defense that most of the prices of the goods that the plaintiff's representative director C unfairly delivered to the defendant around 2009 and the three-year extinctive prescription has expired. Thus, according to each of the evidence (including the paper number) Nos. 20 and 21, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is acknowledged that the payment period of some of the price of the goods was three years prior to May 3, 2013, the filing date of the lawsuit in this case. Meanwhile, according to each of the evidence No. 3-1 and 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff sent to the defendant a transaction balance statement with the contents that the plaintiff requests the confirmation of the price of the goods. Since the defendant can be recognized that the defendant confirmed the claim of the above price of the goods and sent it to the accounting office on February 9, 2012, the expiration date of the extinctive prescription period, this is approved by the defendant, and the above extinctive prescription was interrupted

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

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s preliminary defense of set-off

A. The summary of the defendant's defense (1) that the representative director C of the plaintiff states that "the plaintiff would pay the lease cost per month to the defendant, if he leases a vehicle in the name of the defendant." The defendant believed the horses of C, and the defendant's name against BMW vehicle (hereinafter "the vehicle of this case") between the social service Korea Co., Ltd., which BMWs down in the name of the defendant.