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. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts being cited or added. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or supplementary parts] Part II "B" in Part II of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to "E".

Part 3 through 4 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be construed as "claims to the construction of a contractor under Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act, an article, or any other person engaged in the design or supervision of a construction work" as "the price for products and goods sold by a producer or merchant under Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act".

No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be in accordance with the Act on 17 May 10, 2016, with "the preparatory documents of May 10, 2016."

Part 6 of the judgment of the first instance court, Part 9 "B" shall be added to "E".

From 7th to 8th of the first instance judgment, the first instance court's third to 14th of the third to 7th of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

C. Whether the extinctive prescription period for the claim of KRW 50,924,410 expires

A) As seen earlier, the short-term extinctive prescription of three years is applied in accordance with Article 163 of the Civil Act as consideration for goods sold by merchants, and the Plaintiff supplied goods, such as paint, to the Defendant by October 31, 2012. However, it is apparent in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on November 2, 2015 after three years have passed since the instant lawsuit was filed. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the instant goods payment claim expired, barring any special circumstance. 2) In a case where multiple claim relations for the same kind have been established for the same purpose due to continuous transactions between the same parties, the obligor shall be deemed to have granted approval for the remaining obligations, barring any special circumstance.