1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The fact that the balance of credit payment of the livestock products supplied continuously to the defendant until September 8, 2010 when the plaintiff engaged in the livestock product processing and distribution business is 27,753,000 won does not conflict between the parties. Thus, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the price of the goods 27,753,000 won and damages for delay.

The defendant's defense that the above claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription.

However, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of credit payment claims arising from a continuous goods supply contract shall commence individually from the time when each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurred (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68940, Jan. 25, 2007). In this case where there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was a special agreement on the due date of payment of the above goods payment claim, the extinctive prescription of the above goods payment claim shall proceed from the time when each claim is created. The extinctive prescription of the price for products and goods sold by the producer and merchant is three years (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act). The period of extinctive prescription of the price for products and goods sold by the producer and merchant is three years (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act). Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was filed on March 28, 2016, which was three years after the date of the final transaction. Thus,

Therefore, the above defense is justified.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts to the purport that he notified the defendant of the payment of the price of the goods until September 15, 2014.

However, the peremptory notice does not have the effect of interrupting prescription in the event of a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, summons for compromise, voluntary appearance for compromise, seizure, provisional seizure, and provisional disposition within six months (Article 174 of the Civil Act). (Article 174 of the Civil Act). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff taken the above measures, such as a judicial claim after the peremptory notice, there is no reason for

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.