The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to sell to the Defendant, who operates “D” in Busan Gangseo-gu, a product worth KRW 630,866,00,000,000 to May 24, 2016.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 630,866 won for the price of goods and damages for delay.

2. As shown in the Plaintiff’s assertion, the president of the Customer Sales Board (Evidence A No. 1) unilaterally prepared on the most recent printed paper by the Plaintiff, as well as on the grounds that the Defendant’s signature or seal is difficult to believe. Until May 2016, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the price for the goods by content-certified mail, text message, telephone, etc.

There is no evidence to deem that a tax invoice was issued in relation to the price of goods, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of a claim for the price of goods claimed by the Plaintiff solely based on the evidence No. 2 (Statement).

Even if the Plaintiff had the above claim against the Defendant, the period of extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act as consideration for the goods sold by the merchant. The fact that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the goods at the end of each month is not a dispute between the parties. On the other hand, it is evident in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 19, 2019, which was after three years from June 1, 2016, which was the day following the last day of the month in which the date of the last sale belongs. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the goods against the Defendant was already extinguished by extinctive

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the statute of limitations has been suspended since he/she continuously demanded the Defendant to pay the price of the above goods until March 2019. However, it is insufficient to recognize the same only with the statement of No. 2 (Statement) and no other evidence to acknowledge it exists.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.