1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 6 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff supplied alcoholic beverages to the Defendant from November 8, 2012 to January 30, 2013. As of January 30, 2013, it is recognized that the outstanding amount due to the above supply of alcoholic beverages was KRW 10,595,200, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the aforementioned unpaid alcoholic beverage price of KRW 10,595,200 and delay damages therefrom.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant’s defense of repayment was a fact that the Plaintiff traded alcoholic beverages with the Plaintiff, but the Defendant raised a defense to the effect that his employee paid all the unpaid alcoholic beverages by collecting the Defendant’s cooling equipment and supplies at the time of closing his/her store. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s

B. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for alcoholic beverage price had already expired, and 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 Defendant, who is an alcoholic beverage supplier. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s last supply of alcoholic beverages to the Defendant on January 30, 2013 is clearly stated in the record that the lawsuit of this case was filed on November 15, 2017 after the lapse of three years thereafter, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to deem that the above claim for alcoholic beverage price had already expired.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's defense is justified.

The Plaintiff, on March 19, 2013, prepared a notarial deed (Evidence A) stating that C, an employee of the Defendant, would pay KRW 10,595,200 to the Plaintiff on June 10, 2013, and thus, the said notarial deed has the effect of interrupting prescription or extending prescription, etc. against the Defendant, unless there is any evidence to deem C as having the right to represent the Defendant.