1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff supplied goods to the Defendant from around 2006 to July 2012, or executed goods at a place designated by the Defendant, and received the price of goods from the Defendant.

(B) After the Plaintiff’s discontinuance of transaction with the Defendant for more than three years, the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as whether the Plaintiff continuously placed the goods to the Defendant from March 2016 to August 11, 2018 after resumption of transaction, or executed the goods at the place designated by the Defendant, and received the payment for the goods from the Defendant (hereinafter “second transaction”). [Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s entry in Gap 1-3 and 6 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the parties' assertion 1) The Defendant's obligation to pay the amount of the unpaid goods price to the Plaintiff as of the end of the transaction with the original Defendant is 12,733,708. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said goods price of KRW 12,733,708 and delay damages. 2) The Defendant cannot be recognized as the substitute price claimed by the Plaintiff.

In addition, the claim for the price of goods claimed by the Plaintiff was completed and terminated three years prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

B. The judgment of this court 1) The claim for credit payment arising from a continuous goods supply contract, barring any special circumstance, shall individually pass the extinctive prescription from the time when each credit payment claim arising from an individual transaction occurred, and it shall not be deemed that the extinctive prescription is calculated once more than once against 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). In this case, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant paid both the second transaction to the Plaintiff (including the Plaintiff’s preparatory brief 6 pages, etc., of September 1, 2020; the goods that the Plaintiff sought in this case are the first transaction.