1. The Defendant’s KRW 2,548,50 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 6% from June 1, 2013 to May 17, 2017.

1. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) The Plaintiff engaged in the printing business with the name of “C” has continuously supplied printed matters to the Defendant according to the Defendant’s printing order. The Defendant supplied 2,417,418 won in total prior to June 30, 2012, and additional KRW 2,559,400 in total, and KRW 2,59,000 on July 31, 2012; KRW 2,59,000 on October 31, 2012; KRW 30,598,000 on October 31, 2012; KRW 3,556,000 on January 31, 2013; KRW 30,548,500 on May 31, 2013; KRW 208,500 on May 31, 2013; and KRW 305,515,2013.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1), the extinctive prescription of the remainder of the printed claim except for KRW 2,548,500 on May 31, 2013, 201, excluding the printing price of KRW 2,548,500, and the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the credit payment claim arising from the continuous goods supply contract does not exceed the amount to be paid if the remainder is appropriated for the remaining outstanding amount. (ii) The extinctive prescription of the credit payment claim arising from the continuous goods supply contract, barring any special circumstance, shall not be deemed to have been calculated once on the whole amount of the credit payment claim from the date of termination of the transaction, and the extinctive prescription of the credit payment claim cannot be deemed to have been calculated as one time for the total amount of the credit payment claim from the date of each individual transaction. In the absence of the confirmation of the credit payment amount or the repayment of part of the confirmed amount, the fact that the goods were ordered

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da5959 Decided February 17, 2005, etc.).