2. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff cultivated Blue B from the end of 2011 to November 2016, 201, the Plaintiff sold the instant land to the Korea Rural Community Corporation around 2012.

B. The government is operating a system for compensation direct payments and subsidies for business closure that support certain portions of price decline to the producers of certain items of agricultural products damaged by price decline due to the rapid increase in the import volume of agricultural products as a result of the implementation of free trade agreements, and that provide subsidies to the producers who wish to discontinue the business.

C. The Defendant, which was registered as the producer of Blulue Land, applied for preservation subsidies and closure subsidies to the Plue-gun, and received KRW 36,692,040 in total as the subsidies for compensating for losses and discontinuance of business on December 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant subsidies for compensating for losses”).

The Defendant remitted KRW 6,00,000 to the Plaintiff on January 10, 2017.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5, and 7’s each statement (including each number), the inquiry result of the court of first instance with respect to the order of the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Inasmuch as the Plaintiff solely cultivated Blue Blus on the instant land, the Defendant received the instant subsidies without any legal ground, so long as the Defendant received them, the Defendant shall return the same to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant’s liability for return of unjust enrichment is not recognized, the Defendant is obligated to pay all or part of the instant subsidies for compensating for losses, etc. to the Plaintiff according to the delegation agreement or profit distribution agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff installed a pipe for aiding and abetting the instant land at the end of May 2015, but did not collect the Defendant’s interference, so long as the Defendant did not collect the same as the Defendant did not collect.