1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the judgment of this court are as follows: (a) the main text of the judgment of this court in the first instance is to be dismissed as “a defense”; and (b) the part of the 9th to 10th 10th e.g., the 9th e., the 19th e., the 19th e., the 10th e., the 10th e., the e., the 10th e., the 10th e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the 1318th e.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s filing of an application for the payment order against F, around December 17, 2016, which was before the date three years elapsed from the date of the preparation of the above letter, the period of extinctive prescription of the instant claim for the construction cost was interrupted by the F’s approval of the obligation based on the respective letter dated December 18, 2013, and the said claim was interrupted by the Plaintiff’s claim in the lawsuit filed within three years thereafter. Thus, the Plaintiff’s re-appeal pointing this out is reasonable, and the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is therefore groundless.

"In addition to adding the following judgments, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition of judgment;

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against F did not exist, but the Plaintiff completed the manufacture and installation works of the instant automatic funeral facilities around October 2012 in accordance with the instant construction service contract concluded on February 1, 2012, and F raises objection against the Plaintiff, as the instant settlement agreement and the instant authentic deed.