1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a company that runs the business of manufacturing and selling electric machinery and parts.

B. The Plaintiff supplied goods, such as lighting fixtures, to the Defendant several times. Lastly, on April 30, 2014, the goods amounting to KRW 990,748 were supplied to the Defendant and the goods amounting to KRW 7,775,339 were to be paid to the Defendant at the time.

C. Afterward, the Defendant paid KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff on June 16, 2014.

On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendant 708,290 won.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall pay the remainder of the goods price of KRW 2,067,049 (=7,775,339,5,000-5,000-708,290) to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription, and this is examined.

A claim for the payment of the goods above shall be extinguished by prescription if the payment of the goods and the goods sold by the producer and merchant for three years has not been exercised for three years, since the extinctive prescription was interrupted on June 30, 2014 when the goods were returned to the Defendant on June 16, 2014 or by the lighting organization, which was finally repaid by the Defendant.

(Article 163 Subparag. 6 of the Civil Act). After the lapse of this period, the extinctive prescription was completed on June 30, 2017 at the latest. Since it is apparent that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 6, 2018, which was after the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is with merit.

B. On March 24, 2017, the Plaintiff asserts that the statute of limitations has been interrupted because it was given a peremptory notice to the Defendant.

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the Plaintiff sent a certificate to the Defendant on March 23, 2017 to pay the price for the goods, and the Defendant can be found to have received the certificate on March 24, 2017.

However, the peremptory notice is a judicial claim within six months.