[1] The starting point of the statute of limitations for credit payment claims under a continuous goods supply contract

[2] Whether it can be deemed that the king's obligation of repayment can be acknowledged solely on the basis of the fact that a new product is ordered and supplied in a continuous commodity supply contract (negative)

[1] Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Code and Article 166(1) of the Civil Code / [2] Article 168 subparag. 3 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Da2463 delivered on March 28, 1978 (Gong1978, 10757) Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152 delivered on January 21, 1992 (Gong1992, 874) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959 delivered on February 17, 2005

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Full-time, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2006Na841 Decided September 8, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

A claim for credit payment arising from a continuous goods supply contract is that the extinctive prescription of each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction exists, barring special circumstances, and it cannot be deemed that the extinctive prescription is calculated once more than once for the total amount of credit payment claim from the date of termination of the transaction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 77Da2463, Mar. 28, 1978; 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992; 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). In the absence of confirmation or confirmation of the amount of credit payment due to each other at each individual transaction, the fact that the credit payment claim was newly issued and supplied cannot be deemed as the recognition of the amount of credit payment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959, Feb. 17, 2005).

The court below, based on the adopted evidence, found the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff supplied meat to the Defendants from November 20, 1996 to July 5, 199 (hereinafter “the first transaction”); (b) suspended the subsequent transaction, but supplied meat again from December 30, 2001 to December 2, 2003 (hereinafter “the second transaction”); (c) the remaining amount of credit due to the said first transaction is 28,852,000 won; and (d) the remaining amount of credit due to the second transaction is 7,126,000 won; and (e) rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the aforementioned lawsuit was closed on July 5, 1999, and thus, (e.g., the Plaintiff’s claim was rejected prior to the lapse of the period of extinctive prescription until July 19, 2004.

In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the extinctive prescription of credit payment claims under continuous goods supply contract, or there are no errors in the misapprehension of the facts as to the settlement of credit payment for the first transaction by violating the rules of evidence

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)