1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The fact that the Plaintiff, who runs the business of selling brick products under the trade name of “C”, supplied brick products, etc. to the Defendant from December 2, 2009 to December 2010, that the Plaintiff did not receive KRW 203,490,136 (hereinafter “the price of the instant goods”) out of the price, may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as stated in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including each number).

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 203,490,136 and delay damages, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts that the claim for debt settlement agreement was extinguished since, around December 2010, the Defendant agreed with the Plaintiff to transfer the Defendant’s claim against a third party or to delegate the right to collect the claim to the Plaintiff instead of paying the claim for the price of the instant goods. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the above contents, and therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination 1 on the defense of extinctive prescription provides that the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the instant goods has expired beyond the extinctive prescription period. The claim for the payment of the price of the goods sold by the producer and merchant is complete unless it is exercised for three years (Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act), and the fact that the Plaintiff is the merchant operating the sales business of the brickd goods is as seen above. The fact that the Plaintiff filed an application for the instant payment order with the Defendant seeking the payment of the price of the instant goods from December 3, 2010 to July 3, 2015, which had much more than three years since the last supply of the brickd goods to the Defendant, is apparent in the record. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the said goods against the Defendant against the Defendant was terminated after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period.