1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in respect of each entry (including paper numbers) in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 7, unless there is a dispute between the parties or in full view of the facts:

The Plaintiff is a person engaged in a package design, CD, or DNA processing business with the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in a DNA manufacturing and sales business with the trade name of “D.”

B. From July 2003 to October 2003, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on June 8, 2004, under which the Plaintiff produced and supplied DNA design and printed materials to the Defendant, and was not paid KRW 19,535,100 out of the paid amount, and the remaining KRW 17,535,00 among the paid amount of the goods, the Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff by E, who is the actual manager of the Defendant’s child, within 3 months.

C. After the joint and several guarantee, E paid KRW 5,552,700 to the Plaintiff out of the price of the goods.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. As to the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case seeking the payment of KRW 13,982,40 (19,535, 100-5, 552,700) and damages for delay thereof against the Defendant, the Defendant has a defense of extinctive prescription. Thus, the above claim for the payment of goods constitutes “price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants” under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and the short-term extinctive prescription period of three years is applied. Thus, the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case only on August 19, 2014, which was the final repayment period as stipulated in the above debt grace agreement, for three years from June 8, 2005, which was the final repayment period as stipulated in the above debt grace agreement. Thus, the claim for the payment of goods was extinguished by the completion of prescription.

As such, the defendant's defense pointing this out is with merit.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff, by paying KRW 5,52,700 out of the price of the pertinent goods, paid KRW 5,500,000 to E on March 5, 2013, renounced the benefit of prescription or caused a cause for interrupting prescription.