1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant in the course of manufacturing and wholesale sales business with the trade name of "C" and sought payment of the goods amounting to KRW 29,085,416 among the goods price. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the unpaid goods price is about KRW 4 million and the plaintiff's claim for the goods price against the defendant has expired by prescription.

2. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant has expired by prescription, and the fact that the time of the Plaintiff’s last supply of goods to the Defendant around October 2009 is no dispute between the parties. The Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant is subject to the three-year extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163 of the Civil Act in consideration of the products or goods sold by the producer or merchant. Since it is apparent in the record that the claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant was filed on April 11, 2016 after three years from October 209, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant was extinguished by prescription.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant, during the statute of limitations, promised the plaintiff's employees D to pay the price for the goods, thereby accepting the debt or giving up the prescription benefit.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in witness D’s testimony, it is recognized that D’s employees expressed that D’s intent that D’s payment of goods cannot be made as it is due to defective conditions, and that D’s payment of goods cannot be made as it is by recognizing and approving the existence and amount of the obligation, and thereby recognizing debt or giving up the benefit of prescription.