1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. As of December 30, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) provided additional goods of KRW 221,824,350 from January 1, 2012 to October 31, 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff received KRW 210,00,00 from the Defendant from the end of January 1, 201 to October 2012; and (c) barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the unpaid amount of KRW 134,783,835 (=122,9,485,221,824, 350, 210,000 - 210,000) and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

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

However, since the plaintiff supplied the above goods to the defendant as part of the above business, there is no dispute between the parties that the plaintiff supplied the above goods to the defendant as part of the above business, the extinctive prescription is three years in accordance with Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code, since the remaining goods-price claims constitute the price for the goods sold

Meanwhile, barring special circumstances, a claim for the price of goods arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods ought to individually proceed with extinctive prescription from the time each claim for the price of goods arises due to an individual transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). The foregoing claim for the price of goods was finally created until October 31, 2012.

However, it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on May 8, 2018, which was three years after the filing of the lawsuit, and thus, the statute of limitations had already expired before the filing of the lawsuit of this case.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.