beta
Text
The defendant shall pay 51,571,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from September 20, 2019 to the day of complete payment.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the paper numbers), the plaintiff sold agricultural products to the defendant from May 25, 2007 to July 24, 2017. On July 31, 2017, the plaintiff received the last 340,000 won from the defendant. The defendant's price for unpaid goods on August 1, 2017 is 52,656,000 won.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 51,571,000 won out of the amount of unpaid goods, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from September 20, 2019 to the date of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.
(A) The defendant is dissatisfied with the details of sales of the plaintiff's goods, but the defendant's assertion is rejected in light of the details of sales and the details of payment of goods submitted by the plaintiff.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the price of goods for which three years have passed has expired by prescription.
The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on March 16, 2019, including the sales proceeds of agricultural products sold before March 15, 2016, is apparent in the record.
However, in a case where multiple claims relations with the same kind of object are established due to continuous transactions between the same parties, it shall be deemed that the obligor granted approval for the remaining debt without designating a specific debt, barring any special circumstance, and thus, the interruption of prescription or renunciation of prescription can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da210217, Jul. 9, 2015). The Defendant continuously remitted money to the Plaintiff as the repayment for the price of goods, and finally remitted money amounting to KRW 340,00 on July 31, 2017, and there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant paid the price of goods with designated amount at the time. Therefore, the Defendant approved the entire obligation for the price of the goods in this case.