1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire pleadings by Gap 1-8 as to the cause of the claim, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor, a stock company, etc. (hereinafter “the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor”), from June 20, 2005 to April 24, 2006, provided clothing equivalent to the sum of KRW 41,557,115 to the defendant who operated the clothing store in C, and the increased or decreased sales system may recognize the fact that the plaintiff transferred the above claim against the defendant on April 26, 2006 and notified the transfer of the claim at that time.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the above acquisition amount of KRW 41,557,155 to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

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

Since the above claim for the price of goods is a commercial obligation, the extinctive prescription of five years from April 25, 2006, which is the day following the date on which the last delivery of goods is completed, shall not run. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription has run since April 25, 201.

Therefore, the above defense is justified.

On April 27, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant approved the above debt by delivering the Daejeon apartment sales contract to the Plaintiff for the purpose of securing the above goods-price claim. However, even if the Defendant approved the above debt on April 27, 2006, even if the above debt was approved on April 27, 2006, it is the same that the above debt was completed by prescription around April 27, 201 with the lapse of five years thereafter. Thus, the above counterclaim cannot be accepted.

In addition, the plaintiff re-claimed that the period of extinctive prescription was suspended by receiving the provisional seizure order of claim in order to preserve the above claim, and according to the records as stated in Gap 5, the plaintiff's claim 41,557,155 won against the defendant as the right to preserve the claim against the defendant, and as the Seoul Central District Court 2006Kadan5478 against the defendant's comprehensive development company, the Daejeon Sung-gu D apartment 106, 702.