The judgment of the first instance court is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff supplied “C” to the Defendant from July 2010 to April 2013, and the fact that the Plaintiff was holding a sales claim due to the supply of fertilizers (hereinafter “the instant claim”) against the Defendant and the obligation corresponding thereto (hereinafter “instant obligation”) does not conflict between the parties.

According to the evidence evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the claim of this case can be recognized as constituting a cause of 774,112,869.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 774,112,869 and delayed damages.

2. Defendant’s defense and judgment

A. The judgment of the defendant on the defense of the exemption of obligation is as follows:

The argument is asserted.

As the condition of fertilizers supplied by the Plaintiff is not good, consumers who purchased fertilizers were demanded to return and compensate for damages, and thereby the Defendant suffered damage.

In lieu of the Defendant’s failure to hold the Plaintiff liable for defective products, the Plaintiff also decided not to claim the instant claim against the Defendant.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the exemption of the instant debt and the granting of the agreement.

This part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

B. On the grounds that the statute of limitations defense and re-claim 1), the Defendant expired all of the debt of this case against the Plaintiff after the lapse of the three-year statute of limitations from the due date for payment.

defense.

Therefore, I will look at.

The debt of this case constitutes the price for products and goods sold by producers or merchants as stipulated in Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and the extinguished prescription period is three years.

As seen earlier, the claim of this case occurred from July 2010 to April 2013, and its payment date appears to have arrived around that time. The fact that the lawsuit of this case was filed on October 29, 2019 after three years from the above point of time is apparent in the record.

Therefore, this is applicable.