1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied the livestock products from the Defendant from January 3, 2007 to February 3, 2009. While the Defendant supplied the Plaintiff a total amount of KRW 219,102,733, the Plaintiff received the total amount of KRW 266,514,781 from the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Defendant omitted the amount of the Plaintiff’s payment in the account book, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of the goods that the Plaintiff received in excess of the amount of KRW 45,328,19 (in calculation, KRW 47,412,048, or the amount claimed in the claim).

The fact that the plaintiff was supplied with livestock products during the above period to the defendant has no dispute between the parties.

However, in light of the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (including the number of branch numbers) in light of the evidence Nos. 1 to 3 (including the number of branch numbers), it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff paid the price of the goods in excess of the price as alleged by the Plaintiff during the above period, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that

2. In addition to the judgment of the defendant's defense, the defendant has a claim for return of unjust enrichment against the defendant of the plaintiff.

Even if it is claimed that the period of commercial extinctive prescription of five years has expired.

Article 64 of the Commercial Act may apply to not only claims arising from the commercial activity on behalf of the Plaintiff, but also claims corresponding thereto (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da214871, Jul. 24, 2014). The aforementioned claim for return of unjust enrichment can be deemed claims arising from the return of the price of goods that was paid in excess of the price paid in relation to the transaction of goods by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, namely, claims arising from the transaction of goods by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which are commercial activities, and the transaction relationship related to the return needs to be promptly resolved. As such

Therefore, even if the plaintiff makes the last payment of the price of the goods and completes the transaction with the defendant, the time limit of February 3, 2009 shall be the starting point of the statute of limitations.