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. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the steel framed Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) among the 2nd floor repair works for the Defendant’s second floor building located in the nuclear city owned by the Defendant, and completed the instant construction work on November 2008.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 2 million out of the total construction cost of KRW 9 million.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the construction price of KRW 7 million which is not paid and the delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's defense against the defendant's defense that the contract price claim of this case had already expired after the expiration of the extinctive prescription period. Thus, the defendant's defense is with merit since the defendant's claim for the construction price of this case constitutes a claim against the contractor's construction work, and the period of extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 3 of the Civil Act and the plaintiff completed the construction work of this case around November 2008. Thus, it is obvious that the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case on November 14, 2017, it is obvious that the three years have elapsed since the plaintiff applied for the payment order of this case. Thus, the claim of this case was already terminated after the short-term extinctive prescription of three years prior to the application

As to this, the plaintiff urged the defendant to repay his debt several times before the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, and the defendant promised to pay the construction price on his own on August 2015, thereby recognizing the obligation and thus having suspended the extinctive prescription or renounced the benefit of extinctive prescription. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the plaintiff's re-appeal cannot be accepted.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion shall be dismissed on the ground of the ground of appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.