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. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff claims for the payment of KRW 6,600,000 for salt price of KRW 22,000 per salt brought by the Defendant around, and the delay damages therefrom, by calculating the price of KRW 300 for salt brought by the Defendant around KRW 1.6,60,00 for the damages that the Defendant stolen the Plaintiff’s salt of KRW 300,000 and the delay damages therefrom.

According to the whole purport of the statement and arguments by the plaintiff and the defendant, there is no dispute between the parties, or Eul evidence Nos. 1-1, the plaintiff and the defendant traded salt, and the defendant brought about 300 salt of the plaintiff in September 2004, and the defendant was found guilty of larceny on February 4, 2009 due to the criminal facts that the defendant brought about the plaintiff's salt as above, and was convicted of the defendant on February 4, 2009. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the salt price or damages for salt of 300 ma, barring any special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for salt price has expired after the three-year extinctive prescription.

According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim for salt price constitutes “price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants” under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, and thus, the extinctive prescription period is three years. It is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on October 21, 2015 after the lapse of three years from September 2004, when the Defendant brought salt.

On September 4, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was punished for larceny that the Plaintiff brought the Plaintiff’s salt, and thus, the extinctive prescription would run from that time. However, even if the Plaintiff’s claim is considered as a damage claim due to the Defendant’s tort, the right to claim damages due to the tort is not exercised for three years from the date the victim became aware of the damage and the perpetrator.