The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be.

1. The Plaintiff received a verbal subcontract from the Defendant for stone construction works and cosing construction works at the construction site of 20 sites, such as water sources and Pyeongtaek, from August 26, 2013 to November 17, 2014. The fact that all construction works have been completed is recognized in accordance with the respective descriptions in subparagraphs A through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay the remainder construction cost of KRW 31,54,759 and damages for delay as well as the remainder construction cost of KRW 31,54,759, as the total construction cost of the subcontract under each of the above construction contracts was paid by 69,304,759.

(2) However, it is clear in the record that the Plaintiff brought the instant lawsuit only after the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription period from November 17, 2014, asserting that the Plaintiff was paid the last payment, and only after the lapse of the three-year extinctive prescription period from February 1, 2018 (Article 163 Subparag. 3 of the Civil Act provides for the three-year short-term extinctive prescription period as to the claim for the construction price under a subcontract, it is reasonable to view that even if the claim for the construction price between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was a commercial claim based on a subcontract, the extinctive prescription period is not three years, not a five-year commercial claim under the proviso to Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Supreme Court Decision 2014Da21978 Decided October 27, 2016). Even if the existence of the claim for the construction price had already been recognized, the said claim

I would like to say.

(Plaintiff did not make any assertion or evidence regarding the interruption of extinctive prescription). The Defendant’s defense pointing this out is with merit.

(3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting the defendant's appeal.