beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court of the first instance as to the instant case are to be stated are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, “the Plaintiff,” as set forth in the second sentence of the second sentence of the first instance judgment, shall be deemed to be “the Defendant from 2010 to 2010”; and (b) the argument emphasized by the Defendant in this court is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the additional determination as set forth in the first sentence of Article 420 of the
2. Additional determination
A. In light of the circumstances that the Plaintiff and the Defendant arranged the debt on July 9, 2015 in a notarial deed, etc. and verify each other, if the Defendant did not perform the above individual debt verification, even if the Defendant paid the credit amount by May 1, 2019, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed to have approved the Defendant’s debt, and thus, the claim for the price of goods that occurred prior to June 11, 2016 had already expired.
In addition, the Defendant’s debt of KRW 86,486,00, which the Defendant prepared and approved the notarial deed on July 9, 2015, has already been extinguished by the extinctive prescription prior to the filing of the instant suit.
B. Determination 1) Unless there are special circumstances, the extinctive prescription of credit payment claims arising from a continuous goods supply contract shall not be calculated in a lump sum on the total amount of credit payment from the date of termination of the transaction, and the extinctive prescription shall not be calculated in a lump sum on the total amount of credit payment from the date of the transaction, barring any special circumstances. In the absence of confirming the amount of credit payment of each individual transaction or paying part of the confirmed amount, the fact that the goods of the same kind have been newly supplied cannot be deemed to have approved the obligation to repay the amount of credit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005). However, in a case where several bonds have been established for the same kind of purpose due to continuous transactions between the same parties, the said obligation shall be separately established.