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. On June 25, 2012, the Plaintiff sold Abri 4 gambling 896,000 won to the Defendant via Abri Da, and agreed to pay 89,600 won each month from July 25, 2012 to April 25, 2013, and the late payment charge of 2% per month shall be added if the installment is in arrears on more than two consecutive occasions. However, the Plaintiff agreed to set a period for implementation for 21 days and to lose the benefit of time after the expiration of that period.

B. However, the Defendant paid KRW 89,600 each on August 20, 2012 and November 9, 2012, notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s continued payment notice before and after each of the above payment dates, and did not pay the said goods any longer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant lost the benefit of October 17, 2012, which was 21 days from September 25, 2012, which had been in arrears on two or more consecutive occasions on the date of payment in installments, and barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obliged to immediately pay the remainder of the goods price of KRW 716,80, and damages for delay and late payment thereof to the Plaintiff.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the defendant's claim for the price of the goods of this case was extinguished since three years since November 9, 2012, which was the last payment made by the defendant.

The claim for the price of goods in this case is a claim under Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act (the price for products and goods sold by producers and merchants) and if it is not exercised for three years, the extinctive prescription is complete. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff filed an application for the payment order in this case on February 26, 2018, which was far more than three years from November 9, 2012 when the Defendant lost the benefit of time and partly repaid after the due date became due, it is obvious that the Plaintiff would have made an application for the payment order in this case. Thus, the claim for the price of goods in this case has expired

The defendant's defense pointing this out is the same.