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. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff, who runs the active wholesale business in the name of "C", supplied active terms to the defendant, who runs the restaurant of the trade name of "D" until March 28, 2012, and recognized the fact that the amount of active terms not paid by the defendant constitutes 8,191,000. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above active terms price of KRW 8,191,00 and delay damages therefor.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserts that, around March 2012, the Defendant: (a) decided to transfer the Defendant’s entire business to E; (b) the Plaintiff’s debt owed to E; and (c) the F, who represented the Plaintiff, consented to the foregoing assumption of obligation; (d) the Defendant’s debt owed to the Plaintiff was extinguished.

However, only the descriptions of No. 2-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 alone, E assumed the defendant's obligation to pay the active fish price.

It is insufficient to recognize that the above FF consented to the assumption of the above obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the defendant's argument.

B. 1) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's active fish payment claim of this case has expired by the extinctive prescription, so the fact that the plaintiff, who runs a live wholesale business, supplied the above active fish to the defendant running the restaurant is as seen earlier. Thus, the period of the extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Act, and the plaintiff supplied active fish payment claim to the defendant by March 28, 2012. The fact that the plaintiff supplied active fish payment claim of this case to the defendant by March 28, 2012 is clearly stated in the record, and the plaintiff's claim for active fish payment of this case has expired by prescription, and the defendant's claim for active fish payment of this case has merit.