beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the claim for the price of goods
A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 5 (including branch numbers) as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff sold the whole uniform-type materials and feed, etc. with the trade name of Eul from January 12, 2012 to April 8, 2013. The plaintiff sold the whole uniform-type materials and feed, etc. to the defendant from January 12, 2012 to April 8, 2013, and it can be recognized that the outstanding amount at the time constitutes 94,237,350, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.
B. The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant against the Defendant is subject to the three-year extinctive prescription pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, as consideration for the goods sold by the merchant. The instant lawsuit was filed on Nov. 28, 2017, which was three years after April 8, 2013 from the date on which the Plaintiff sold the goods to the Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods against the Defendant against the Defendant had already been completed and terminated before the instant lawsuit was filed. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense pointing this out is with merit.
With respect to this, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant in fraud around November 2014 by the defendant's failure to pay the goods, and the defendant agreed to pay the above goods to the plaintiff on or around December 2014, thereby withdrawing the complaint around that time. The defendant's promise to repay constitutes the approval of the obligation, and thus the extinctive prescription has not yet expired at the time of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, but the statement in the evidence No. 15 and No. 16 is insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant recognized the goods payment obligation to the plaintiff and promised to pay the goods to the plaintiff on or around December 2014, and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, it is difficult to accept the re-claim of the plaintiff.
C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part cannot be accepted.
2...