beta
Text
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.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1-8 and 9-1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff supplied the defendant a total of KRW 279,794,100 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 from January 2, 2010 to May 20, 2010, and the defendant paid KRW 123,108,420 as the remainder of the remaining price of the goods after paying KRW 123,510,675 as the remainder of the remaining goods from October 1, 2012 to November 8, 2012; ② the plaintiff supplied the defendant a total of KRW 28,393,80 as stated in the separate sheet Nos. 1 to May 20, 2010; and the defendant can be recognized as having paid the remaining amount of the goods to the defendant a total of KRW 309,97,970 as the remainder of the remaining goods.
Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total sum of the remaining goods price of KRW 233,309,065 (=203,510,675 won) and damages for delay.
2. The defendant's defense is defense that the above remaining claim for the price of goods has expired by prescription.
However, since there is no dispute between the parties as part of the above business that the plaintiff operated a wholesale and retail business and supplied each item listed in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2 to the defendant as part of the above business, the remaining goods-price claim constitutes the price for the goods sold by the merchant and its extinctive prescription is three years pursuant to Article 163 subparagraph 6 of the Civil Code.
Meanwhile, a claim for the price of goods arising from a continuous contract for the supply of goods ought to individually proceed with extinctive prescription from the time each claim for the price of goods arises from an individual transaction, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da10152, Jan. 21, 1992). As seen earlier, each of the above claim for the price of goods arose between January 2, 2010 and November 8, 2012.
However, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was filed on February 26, 2016, which was three years after the lawsuit of this case was filed.