1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person engaged in optical fish farming business under the trade name of “C,” and the Defendant is a person engaged in optical fish distribution business under the trade name of “D.”

B. On April 11, 2013, the Plaintiff sold 15 million won or more to the Defendant. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 10 million from the Defendant on April 15, 2013, and only KRW 250 million on April 29, 2013, and paid KRW 3 million for the remainder of the goods (= KRW 15 million - KRW 15 million - two million).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The judgment on the cause of the claim is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 3 million and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 17, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff as the result of the supply of goods.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) The gist of the statute of limitations defense 1) The claim for the price of goods in this case is a claim on the price of goods and products sold by producers and merchants, and the three-year short-term extinctive prescription is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act, and thus, the three-year short-term extinctive prescription has already expired. 2) The claim for the price of goods in this case, which

However, the effect of the interruption of prescription by provisional seizure continues until provisional seizure is revoked (Article 175 of the Civil Act), the evidence mentioned above, and evidence No. 3, the plaintiff, on July 15, 2013, was determined to provisionally seize real estate by using the claim for the payment of goods in this case as the preserved claim (Article 2013Kadan1726 of the Jeju District Court), and the provisional seizure was revoked on April 26, 2017.

If so, the claim for the price of goods in this case was suspended until April 26, 2017 when provisional seizure was revoked, and the extinctive prescription is newly run from that date.