1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The original Defendant (referring to a corporation newly established on November 9, 201 after the date of dissolution of B Co., Ltd. established on November 24, 201) contracted electrical construction among the new construction works of neighborhood living facilities (public bath) buildings implemented since 2011 to the Defendant, and the Defendant was not paid KRW 100 million out of the construction cost by the Plaintiff.

On September 10, 2012, the defendant's director C promised to receive a loan from the plaintiff and repay the amount of KRW 100 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 100 million of the construction cost of this case and damages for delay.

B. It was true that the Plaintiff awarded a contract for electrical construction among the construction works for new construction of the above building to the Defendant, but the Defendant discontinued electrical construction around 2012, and the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of three years thereafter. The Plaintiff’s claim for the construction payment expired after the lapse of three years.

2. Determination:

A. Even if the Plaintiff had a claim for the construction price, as alleged in the Defendant, insofar as there is no separate agreement on the time limit for the payment of the construction price, the pertinent right to the construction price can be exercised immediately after the completion of the electrical construction. The instant lawsuit was filed on August 21, 2018, which was three years after the expiration of the said three years, under Article 163 subparag. 3 of the Civil Act, even if counting from December 17, 2013, which was the date when the Plaintiff’s approval for the use of new buildings appearing in Gap evidence No. 3, as alleged by the Defendant. 2013.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for construction cost has expired, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. As to this, the Plaintiff re-appealed to the effect that the extinctive prescription has been interrupted by approving the liability for electrical construction proceeds on several occasions between April 15, 2015 and September 2, 2016 by D substantially operating the Defendant Company.

As a ground for the interruption of extinctive prescription.