beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On July 30, 2010 and August 9, 2010, the Plaintiff supplied ELDD (hereinafter “instant goods”) jointly operated by the Defendants, and the fact that the total amount of the price for the instant goods (hereinafter “the instant goods”) was 72,320,875, is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the price for the instant goods and the delay damages therefrom, barring any special circumstance.
2. The defendants' defenses and the plaintiff's defenses
A. The defendants' defense and judgment are defenses that the statute of limitations has expired after the defendants' claim for the price of the goods of this case. Accordingly, the statute of limitations is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act for the price of the products and the products sold by the producers and merchants. [This case's claim for the price of the goods of this case is clear that the plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods of this case was filed on August 9, 2010, when the products are not manufactured but manufactured products supplied to the defendants as alleged by the plaintiff. However, in the case where the products are replaced by the substitute products, the provision on sale is applicable to the sale, but the legal nature of the products is a contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da42976, Jun. 28, 1996). Thus, the plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods of this case constitutes a claim for the work of the contracted person and its statute of limitations is clear that the lawsuit of this case was filed on July 20, 20.
Therefore, since the claim for the price of the goods in this case was extinguished by prescription prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, the defendants' defense is justified.
B. The Plaintiff’s second defense and determination 1, which the Defendants discontinued, approved the instant goods payment obligation by consulting with the Plaintiff by October 31, 2010 for the purpose of adjusting the instant goods payment obligation.