부당이득금 반환
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. On July 21, 2014, at the time when the Plaintiff asserted that the remainder was paid, a part of the relevant de facto disease was incurred to the Plaintiff without merit, and the same year.
8. The agricultural product cultivation contract of this case was cancelled in accordance with the above special agreement, since it was shipped from around 20.20 to about 12,00 square meters of the Defendant’s growth, and it could not have been shipped.
Therefore, the Defendant should refund to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 63,00,000,000 for the amount of KRW 7,000 which the Plaintiff had never harvested at all, and KRW 22,50,000 for the amount of KRW 50,00 for the amount of KRW 7,000 for which the Plaintiff had not harvested at all, and KRW 85,50,000 for the amount of damages for delay.
B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have managed crops for 40 days after the Defendant sold them free of charge in accordance with the terms and conditions of the instant agricultural product cultivation agreement, and where diseases, such as depression and difficult jobs, have occurred during the said period, the said contract becomes null and void, and thereafter, the Plaintiff is the purchaser, and thereafter the management of agricultural crops, such as prevention of damage by blight and harmful insects, and where damage has occurred due to damage caused by shortage of management, damage caused by blight and harmful insects, natural disaster, etc., the Plaintiff, the purchaser,
In all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had been a critical disease to the extent that the purpose of the above contract was not achieved on July 21, 2014, which became 40 days after the termination of the contract of this case from the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit to examine the scope of the Plaintiff’s damage.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is delivered with this conclusion.