1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The judgment on the cause of the principal claim is that the Plaintiff is a person who runs a metal treatment business with the trade name of C, and the Defendant is a person who runs a machine manufacturing and repair business with the trade name of D, and the Plaintiff was supplied with materials required for heat treatment from February 2, 2011 to May 20, 2014 at the Defendant’s request and supplied them to the Defendant, but the fact that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 29,804,530 for the processing cost did not dispute between the parties, or that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 1 to 5,7,80,530 for the processing cost, and the entire purport of the arguments and the whole purport of the arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 8, and 1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 29,804,530,000, which is not paid to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription 1 regarding the Defendant’s assertion is a claim that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for the period of short-term extinctive prescription is applied to the period of short-term period of three years, and the claim for the expenses incurred prior to three years since March 5, 2015, which the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, was extinguished by the extinctive prescription.

As to this, the Plaintiff continued and repeated transactions from February 201 to May 20, 2014 for the supply of heat processed products by the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s extinctive prescription does not run individually whenever the Plaintiff delivers processed products to the Defendant, but runs simultaneously from June 20 to May 20, 2014, when the Plaintiff and the Defendant completed final transactions.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the statute of limitations for the claim for processing costs was suspended since part of the obligation was repaid to the plaintiff.

A claim for credit payment arising from a continuous commodity supply contract shall, except in extenuating circumstances, occur each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction.