1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that he/she entered into a goods transaction agreement with Defendant B on September 11, 2012, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above goods payment obligation. The Plaintiff produced and supplied cosmetics to Defendant B in accordance with the said goods transaction agreement from January 2, 2013 to December 2, 2015, and received the total amount of KRW 585,210,156 from Defendant B. Thus, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 181,200,601 won to the Plaintiff.

2. According to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, in the case of prices for products and goods sold by producers and merchants, the extinctive prescription is complete if the claims are not exercised for three years. The last delivery month alleged by the Plaintiff is the month of the last delivery, and the whole purport of the pleadings in the statement A1, the payment date will be January 20, 2016, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the statement A1.

Therefore, it is evident that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 15, 2019 after three years have elapsed since that time, and the Plaintiff’s claim for the price of goods has expired by the short-term extinctive prescription of three years.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is justified.

As a commercial claim, the Plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription has not yet expired at the time the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit, since it is applied to the claim for the price of goods as a commercial claim.

However, the proviso of Article 64 of the Commercial Act provides that “if other Acts and subordinate statutes provide for the short-term prescription, such provisions shall apply.” As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase-price against the Defendant is subject to the short-term extinctive prescription under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.