Daegu Attorney Recommendation | Assisting a Client in a Goods Price Claim Lawsuit Leading to a Decision Granting the Full Amount Claimed

🔗Price of goods refers to the payment received in return for selling goods.

When a transaction contract for goods is established, the buyer must pay the seller the price for the goods.

The price of goods is a type of claim and is subject to extinctive prescription.

Extinctive prescription is a system that recognizes the extinguishment of a right when it is confirmed that the holder of the right has not exercised it for a certain period or longer.

Under the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription for a claim is ten years, but for a claim for the price of goods a short-term extinctive prescription of three years applies.

When a goods price claim lawsuit is filed, the burden of proof rests with the plaintiff, so evidentiary materials that can prove the unpaid amount are more important than anything else.

∙Precedent on the extinctive prescription of the price of goods

The Supreme Court held that where a claim for the price of goods arises from a commercial transaction, the extinctive prescription is three years.

In that case, the Supreme Court determined that because the creditor did not claim the payment within the extinctive prescription period, the claim had been extinguished.

The Court emphasized that extinctive prescription means the legal time limit within which a creditor may exercise a right, and that under the Commercial Act a three-year extinctive prescription applies to commercial claims (the price of goods).

The Daegu attorney argued that the defendant had been supplied the goods in this case by the client, had requested payment of the relevant amount, and had received a response.

When the client requested payment, the defendant sent the client a message saying, 'I will make the payment after the holidays. I am sorry for the delay.'

The Daegu attorney submitted the text messages exchanged between the client and the defendant as evidence, making clear that the client had supplied the goods to the defendant and that the defendant had the intent to pay the price.

The defendant has been refusing to pay the price on the ground that the goods delivered by the client were defective.

The Daegu attorney argued that the defendant, having received the goods, said nothing at all about any defect and only claimed a defect once the client claimed payment.

In fact, as proven above, the defendant indicated that he had received the goods well and would soon pay the price.

If the delivered goods had been defective, the defendant would not have said such things.

The Daegu attorney pointed out that the defendant's claim that he could not pay the price of goods because the goods were defective was contradictory.