beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) since September 2009 to December 7, 2010, the price for the goods that the plaintiff had not been supplied with textile to the defendant is KRW 30,546,110, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and the damages for delay to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant refused to receive the tax invoice for the goods transaction with the plaintiff, and the plaintiff had no choice but to follow it according to the defendant's superior transaction status. The plaintiff suffered losses due to the defendant's tort, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim on the price of the above goods, the Defendant has already expired by prescription.
Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act is applicable to the claim for the price of the above goods claimed by the Plaintiff as a stock company and Article 163 subparag. 6 of the price of the goods sold by the Plaintiff as the goods or the price of the goods sold by the Plaintiff as the merchant. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is evident in the record that there was an application for the instant payment order on January 28, 2015, which was apparent from December 7, 2010 among the original and the Defendant, and thus, the extinctive prescription has expired.
As to this, on March 2, 201, the Plaintiff asserted that the statute of limitations has not expired since the Defendant continuously urged the Defendant to perform the payment order, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant as a content certificate on October 2, 2014, and applied for the instant payment order before the lapse of six months thereafter.
Since the fact that the Defendant remitted KRW 1.6 million to the Plaintiff on March 2, 2011 does not conflict between the parties, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s extinctive prescription was interrupted by approving the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the said goods at the same time.
However, six months shall have passed after peremptory notice was given.