A. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 2, 6, 8, 10, 11 (including a serial number) and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and Eul's evidence Nos. 1 as to the claim for the refund of the purchase price already paid, the plaintiff has continuously been paid to the defendant for about 20 years before the end of the period of 20 years with the trade name of "C," and the plaintiff has been supplied with the extended payment. The plaintiff paid the total amount of KRW 1,935,013,00 to the defendant, head distribution farming association, D, and E from May 17, 201 to December 26, 2012, the transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant has been terminated on December 26, 2012; the defendant prepared evidence Nos. 6 (the defendant's account books) and paid the total amount to the defendant to the defendant by 30.5 billion won and 40.15 billion won to the defendant.

In addition, the Plaintiff is a person who has been supplied by the Defendant with a total of KRW 1,916,931,200 from May 17, 2011 to December 24, 2012.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 18,081,80,00, excluding the total amount of KRW 1,916,931,200, which the Plaintiff was supplied by the Plaintiff in the amount of KRW 1,935,013,00,000 (=1,935,013,000-1,000-1,916,931,200).

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's total amount of KRW 49,800,000 paid to the head distribution farming association on July 15, 2011 is not paid to the defendant, but the plaintiff is the purchase price paid to the head distribution farming association in a separate transaction between the head distribution association and the head distribution association and the Namsan and Spain.

However, the statements in Gap evidence 6 and Eul evidence 2 alone are sufficient to reverse the above judgment and the plaintiff 49,800.