1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, who is engaged in the manufacturing business of alleged mechanical devices, completed the manufacturing and supply of CVPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP, from November 16, 201 to December 7, 2011; and (2) on two occasions from August 4, 2011 to September 22, 2011; (3) on three occasions, 401.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not request the plaintiff to produce and repair the monetary form, and there is no fact that the plaintiff produced or repaired the monetary form and supplied it to the defendant.

Even if a gold production and repair had been made, the claim has expired by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years in accordance with Article 163(3) or (7) of the Civil Code.

2. We first examine the statute of limitations defense.

Even if the Defendant is liable to pay for the production and repair costs of gold, the claim for gold production and repair costs constitutes “claim related to the duties of a person engaged in water business and manufacturer” under Article 163 subparag. 7 of the Civil Act or “claim of the contractor” under subparagraph 3 of the same Article, and thus, the short-term extinctive prescription of three years is applied. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on July 7, 2016 when three years elapsed from the date on which the Plaintiff asserts that he/she had been produced and repaired and supplied to the Defendant is apparent in the record, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for gold production and repair costs and its repair costs were extinguished by prescription

Therefore, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit, and the plaintiff's claim is without merit.