손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase in full the part of the Plaintiff’s non-use arms cultivated for three years from 2013, and accordingly, the Plaintiff sold a non-use visa to the Defendant in 2013 and 2014.
In 2015, the Plaintiff received down payment of KRW 30 million from the Defendant, and cultivated a dry field with approximately KRW 99,000 square meters after being provided with a seed from the Defendant.
However, the defendant only purchased only a part of the cultivated non-purchase but did not purchase the remainder, and thereby, the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the purchase price.
Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 20 million, including the amount of KRW 198,000,000 for non-price 198,000,000 for damages due to nonperformance of obligation (i.e., KRW 90,00g x 200,000) and damages for delay.
B. In full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant purchased free land for non-use cultivated by the plaintiff from the plaintiff in 2013 and 2014, the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 30 million to the plaintiff by account transfer on May 18, 2015 and the following day, and the defendant provided the plaintiff with a spood seeds around August 2015.
However, the so-called dry field sale and so-called dry field sale mean a contract under which a producer acquires the price in advance prior to harvest by specifying the price according to the expected yield based on the area, quantity, etc. in the cultivation condition before harvest.
In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant calculated estimated yield based on the area or quantity, etc.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that the purchase price was specified on the basis of this, and thus, it cannot be said that the sale and purchase between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was constituted with respect to the non-use of land cultivated by the Plaintiff.