1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserts that, as the cause of the instant claim, while the Plaintiff engaged in the original sale business, etc. with the trade name called “D”, the Plaintiff solely sought payment of the entire proceeds of the attempted goods, since the Plaintiff continued to supply clothing wholesale sales business from April 10, 2008 to March 11, 2013, and the proceeds of the attempted goods amounting to KRW 7,452,50, and up to KRW 1/2 of the trade partner’s claim for the payment of the entire proceeds of the attempted goods.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, although he traded with C, he did not know the Plaintiff, the details of the order asserted by the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged, and even if there exists an obligation to pay for the failed goods, the extinctive prescription period of three years has expired.

C. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff asserts that the extinctive prescription was interrupted because the Plaintiff was paid KRW 100,000 from the Defendant in cash.

2. Determination

A. Even if the non-paid claim of the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized, the extinctive prescription of the claim for the price of goods claimed by the Plaintiff is applied pursuant to Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act as consideration for the goods sold by the merchants. According to the Plaintiff’s assertion and the transaction account book submitted by the Plaintiff, insofar as the date on which the Plaintiff supplied the goods was the last day of March 11, 2013 and the date on which the payment was not specified otherwise, is the starting date of the extinctive prescription. The fact that the instant lawsuit was filed on May 11, 2016, which was three years after the last date of the instant lawsuit, is apparent in the record. Accordingly, the claim for the price of goods claimed by the Plaintiff

b.

In addition, on June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff appears to be consistent with the fact that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted by paying in cash KRW 100,000 from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.