1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff is a corporation that runs wholesale and retail business such as prime body, clothing, etc., and the defendant is a corporation that runs textile manufacturing business.

In 209 and thereafter, the Plaintiff has continuously engaged in a continuous transaction of supplying raw materials of clothing from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff operated the business by delivering the raw materials of clothing supplied by the Defendant to the manufacturing company of clothing.

The Plaintiff received an original supply of the clothing from the Defendant, and left the relevant goods as the outstanding amount, subsequently, received the payment from the manufacturers of clothing in cash or in bills, and thereafter, secured the funds, the Plaintiff paid the outstanding amount to the Defendant in a way that pays the outstanding amount over several times (the due date for the payment of the goods seems not to have been determined separately). The Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated the transaction relationship on September 30, 2019 at the end of the transaction of the goods.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The price for goods that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant was appropriated for the repayment of the obligation for goods in transactions most recently made in the form of a monthly settlement according to the implied agreement.

The Defendant’s claim for the payment of goods against the Plaintiff constitutes “price for products and goods sold by manufacturers and merchants” as prescribed by Article 163 subparag. 6 of the Civil Act and the statute of limitations expires for a short period of three years. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods based on the transaction between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on October 2016 (i.e., up to September 30, 2016) expired upon the lapse of the three-year prescription. On the other hand, the transaction amount after October 2016 was KRW 4,413,82,149, total amount of KRW 42,281,750, and the amount of goods paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant during the same period was KRW 28,39,601 (= KRW 4,442,281,750, KRW 4,413,413,882,149).

Therefore, the defendant's excessive payment to the plaintiff 28,39,601 shall be unjust profit.