1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff operated a manufacturing business of steel materials, etc. in Gyeongbuk-gun D; and (b) from April 11, 2016 to the Defendant operating the business with the trade name “F” in Gwangju City E.

9. Until September, 90, the Defendant supplied steel products, such as steel products, to the Plaintiff. The Defendant did not pay KRW 40,100,000 out of the price of the goods.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 40,100,000 and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 1 through 8 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff from April 11, 2016 to the Defendant.

9. By September 9, 201, the Plaintiff supplied steel products, such as steel products, and the price for the goods that the Plaintiff supplied to the Defendant as of September 9, 2016 is KRW 80,142,700, and the price paid by the Defendant is KRW 25,877,50.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 40,100,000 won and damages for delay, which the plaintiff seeks, out of the amount of goods unpaid to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The defendant's defense is proved to have completed the short-term extinctive prescription of three years in accordance with Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act with respect to the claim for the price of goods for which the plaintiff seeks payment (hereinafter "the claim of this case").

The claim in this case is subject to a short-term extinctive prescription of three years as “price for the goods sold by the producer,” and the extinctive prescription of the claim in this case is to run from September 9, 2016, which was finally paid by the Defendant, and it is deemed that the extinctive prescription of the claim in this case was completed on September 9, 2019, which was three years thereafter.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that the date on which the last repayment was made by the defendant was made on February 10, 2017, and thus, the extinctive prescription has not been completed. However, the defendant asserts that the date on which the last payment was made to the plaintiff was made on September 9, 2016, and that the payment was not made thereafter.