1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On January 201, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with construction materials, etc. at the request of the Defendant to supply them. By March 26, 2011, the Plaintiff supplied the Defendant with construction materials equivalent to KRW 99,147,580.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the unpaid balance of 68,834,500 won and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the plaintiff, the above assertion is without merit.

[No evidence shall be deemed to have been submitted on the ground that the parties were present at the date for pleading or the date for preparatory pleading and submit it in reality (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da15775, Nov. 8, 1991). No evidence attached to a documentary evidence may be deemed to have been presented on the ground that the written complaint or the briefs attached with a documentary evidence were stated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 70Da1240, Aug. 18, 1970). In this case, the Plaintiff did not continue to appear, and the documentary evidence attached to the written complaint deemed to have been presented cannot be deemed to have been presented).

Furthermore, I examine the defendant's defense of settlement agreement.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 4, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant on June 30, 201 to the effect that “the Defendant returns part of the construction materials to the Plaintiff by July 17, 201, and separately pays KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff, thereby extinguishing the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods unpaid to the Plaintiff.” The Defendant returned the construction materials pursuant to the above agreement and paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Plaintiff on July 21, 201.” Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the payment of the unpaid goods against the Plaintiff was extinguished.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

C. Furthermore, we examine the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription.

As seen in the instant case, credit settlement claims arising from a continuous goods supply contract shall be governed by individual transactions, except in extenuating circumstances.