1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,321,866 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from February 20, 2018 to November 20, 2018.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, the plaintiff, who runs a construction business, supplied the goods of the construction material to the defendant who runs the construction business from April 23, 2008 to July 4, 2016; the defendant paid the goods from time to time; the price for the goods as of September 16, 2015 remains in KRW 5,490,816; the plaintiff supplied the goods equivalent to KRW 14,845,100 to the defendant after September 16, 2015; and the fact that the defendant additionally paid the price to the plaintiff KRW 28,014,050 to the defendant after September 16, 2015.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 42,321,866 won (i.e., 55,490,816 won 14,845,100 won - 28,014,050 won) and the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Commercial Act from February 20, 2018 to November 20, 2018, which is the day following the day when a copy of the complaint of this case is served, to dispute the existence and scope of the Defendant’s performance obligation, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day when the payment is made.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant repaid KRW 27,924,050 to the Plaintiff after September 16, 2015. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 2, the amount repaid after September 16, 2015 can be acknowledged as constituting 28,014,050. As such, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim, which exceeds the price of the goods recognized as above, i.e., the claim corresponding to the difference in the above amount, is without merit). 2. On September 16, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the claim for the price of goods arising before September 16, 2015, the claim for the price of goods, which occurred, has expired three years after the statute of limitations expired

The plaintiff's claim for the price of the goods of this case against the defendant constitutes a short-term extinctive prescription of three years under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.

And it is caused by continuous commodity supply contract.