Busan Law Firm | Assisted a Corporate Client and Claimed the Full 50 Million Won in Unpaid Price of Goods

The client runs a small and medium-sized manufacturing company and had supplied machinery and equipment to the defendant (a business partner) on several occasions.

For the first few times, payment was made normally, so there was no significant problem.

However, from a certain point, the defendant began to repeatedly delay payment.

Contact with the person in charge gradually broke off, and the client did not receive the price of the goods even after several months had passed.

The client tried to resolve the matter alone, but the defendant avoided contact and evaded responsibility.

Concluding that the client could wait no longer, the client came to the Busan law firm and requested a 🔗lawsuit claiming the price of goods.

A lawsuit claiming the price of goods is a procedure for claiming payment through the court when the price has not been received even after the goods have been delivered.

When a lawsuit claiming the price of goods is filed, the plaintiff must prove that the unpaid price actually exists, so it is very important to carefully assemble evidence such as the contract, delivery notes, tax invoices, and transaction records.

In addition, even if a party wins the lawsuit, it may be difficult to actually recover the money if the other party has no assets.

Conducting an asset investigation in advance or securing assets related to the price of goods to be recovered through measures such as a provisional attachment can also be a good approach.

Because the price of goods is also a type of claim, the extinctive prescription applies.

Extinctive prescription is a system under which, if a person who holds a right does not exercise that right for a long time, the right is regarded as having extinguished by operation of law.

Under the Civil Act, the extinctive prescription for ordinary claims is ten years, but for claims arising from repeated and routine transactions, such as the price of goods, a short-term extinctive prescription of three years applies.

The client and the defendant entered into a contract, and the client faithfully performed the contractual obligations.

The client delivered goods of the quantity and quality set forth in the contract and possesses objective materials, such as tax invoices and delivery statements, that can establish that the transaction actually existed.

The Busan attorney emphasized that a clear transaction had been carried out under the contract at issue, and that the defendant's obligation to pay the price of goods under the contract was evident.

The Busan attorney argued that the defendant was refusing and evading payment without justifiable cause despite the client's repeated demands.

The Busan attorney emphasized that this constituted non-performance of obligation under Article 390 of the Civil Act, and that liability for damages arising from it could also accrue.