A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a farmer who cultivates spaw in the neighboring 12 lots of land, including 2152 square meters in Jeju-si, and the Defendant is a merchant who sells agrochemicals to nearby farmers in the name of “E” in D. (2) On April 9, 2016, the Defendant sold and supplied a mixture of agricultural chemicals in the form of packageing in small quantities (hereinafter “instant mixture of agricultural chemicals”) by directly mixing various kinds of agricultural chemicals, fertilizers, etc. as follows.

The Plaintiff distributed the instant pesticide supplied by the Defendant at its own dry field in 100ml 100ml viral viral viral viral viral 100ml viral viral viral 100ml 100ml viral 100ml viral 8ml 100ml viralsl 100ml viral 8ml 3 of 120ml gr. Since then, the Plaintiff began to have symptoms that the instant pesticide cultivated by the Plaintiff appeared to have failed to grow normally due to the fact that the leaves do not properly go with the old rain, as well as the fact that the leaves do not go back. 4.) In order to recover the symptoms above, the Plaintiff supplied the instant pesticide products from Defendant on April 19, 2016 and on April 29, 2016.

5 The plaintiff on June 2016; and

7. Around that time, yield and quality had been considerably low compared to that of a year.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, result of on-site verification of the case for which evidence preservation is applied by Jeju District Court 2016Kaga165, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant sold and supplied the mixed pesticide of this case where multiple agrochemicals and fertilizers were mixed to the plaintiff without permission, and in particular, did not properly explain to the plaintiff about the influence of royalties that should be prudence in mixed use. The defendant did so.