1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

judgment No. 1.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in fibering business, etc. with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a company engaged in fiber exporting business, etc.

B. The Plaintiff processed and supplied the original team to the Defendant from November 201 to February 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's argument was defective in the original body supplied by the plaintiff, and the defendant did not arbitrarily reduce and pay the original unit price stated in the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above unpaid original unit price to the plaintiff. 2) The defendant's argument ① the plaintiff, and the plaintiff agreed to reduce the original unit price on the ground of defects in the original body supplied by the plaintiff, and the defendant paid all the remaining original unit price.

② Even if the Plaintiff’s claim for short-term payment exists, the statute of limitations expired since the three-year period from December 4, 2013, which was the date of the last payment by the original group supplied in 2013.

B. 1) First, we examine whether there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the reduction of the amount of the original cost. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to reduce the amount equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim from the original cost around November 2013, and the Defendant paid all the remaining amount of the original cost. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the existence of the remaining amount of the original cost is without merit. ① Around September 2013, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 123,58,135 to the Defendant (unit price 305 x 405 x 207 x 207 d.

The defendant, around October 3, 2013, is defective in the original unit supplied by the plaintiff to the plaintiff on September 16, 2013, while the unit price of the original unit is set by the plaintiff.