1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Determination on the grounds for the claim

A. As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff supplied 17,10,000 won to the Defendant on August 13, 2010. As such, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the price of KRW 17,100,000 for the goods as well as damages for delay therefrom. As such, it is difficult to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion solely by the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8 and the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial and the witness C of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Meanwhile, the defendant defense that the plaintiff's claim for the price of the above goods has already expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, even if the plaintiff's claim for the price of the above goods is acknowledged to have supplied the defendant with a past sense equivalent to KRW 17,100,000 on August 13, 2010, as alleged by the plaintiff, the above claim for the price of the above goods is the price for the goods sold by the merchant, three years under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and the claim for the price of the above goods is deemed to have not been fixed. Thus, the starting point of the extinctive prescription period is the date of the occurrence of the claim, and since the plaintiff's claim for the price of the above goods was clearly filed on August 13, 2010, which was four years and 11 months from August 13, 2015, which was the date of the occurrence of the above claim, the extinctive prescription period of the plaintiff's claim for the price of the above goods has expired.

As to this, the Plaintiff’s wife D remitted KRW 75,00 to the deposit account in the name of wife E, which was the vice president of the Plaintiff as of October 8, 2012, and accordingly, re-claimed that the extinctive prescription of the claim for the payment of the above goods was suspended. Accordingly, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement No. 4, and the testimony and pleading by the witness of the first instance trial witness C, the Plaintiff’s wife deposited KRW 75,00 in the name of “D(B)” in the deposit account in the name of Party C, the wife, is deemed to have been deposited, but the above facts of recognition and other facts.