A. The Plaintiff is a person who operates D’s rice mills in Seosan City, and the Plaintiff and E, who operated the said rice mills together with the Plaintiff, entered into an agreement on rice supply for purchase with F and oral around May 2015 (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

B. According to the instant agreement, the Plaintiff was supplied with rice production equivalent to KRW 28,119kg (51,300,40kg) of G production in amount of KRW 36,062,617 on May 18, 2015, as rice produced in the amount of KRW 27,09kg (1,300/1kg) and the rice production in the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, forestry, and the agricultural, and fishery, etc.

C. On May 28, 2015, the Plaintiff paid rice price of KRW 1.3 million and KRW 1.3 million and KRW 36,430,00 on June 3, 2015 and KRW 20 million on the Defendant’s account number. D.

After June 5, 2015, the last supply date, the Plaintiff and E urged the Defendant to supply rice or return the remainder to the Defendant over several times, but the Defendant and E did not comply with it.

E. On January 14, 2016, a copy of the instant complaint, indicating the Plaintiff’s intent to rescind the instant agreement due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of the rice supply agreement, was served on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, each statement of evidence 8 and 9 (including each number), witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the instant agreement was lawfully rescinded on January 14, 2016, barring any special circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 36,55,683 corresponding to the unpaid portion of the price received as restitution, and delay damages therefrom.

B. The defendant's assertion and judgment 1) The defendant merely accepted the rice supply price at F's request on behalf of the defendant, and is not a party to the contract of this case. 2) The plaintiff paid the rice price to the defendant under the contract of this case as seen above. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment 1 are as follows: Gap's evidence Nos. 4, 5, and Eul's evidence No. 1, and witness F's testimony.