1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. Defendant B of the first instance judgment

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the judgment of the first instance is that “written account issued by the plaintiff to the defendant” under Section 14 of Section 2 of the judgment of the first instance as “written account issued by the defendant to the plaintiff,” and the defendant’s argument in the trial of the first instance is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the determination of addition under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the collection of samples by the National Seed Institute is inadmissible on the ground that it is difficult to confirm that the seedlings of this case is a yellow system plant variety because the time when samples are taken by the National Seed Institute is no tree tree tree, and it is difficult to confirm that the said samples are yellow plant plant variety, and that the above samples are not suitable for confirming that they are yellow plant variety at the time of the collection of samples, and that the result of analysis

As a whole, the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided to conduct a genetic test on the seedlings of this case, and collected samples from the Plaintiff’s orchard, Defendant’s operation D, and E around September 25, 2017. According to the results of the analysis of the national seed sample, the genetic similarity between D samples (Defendant) and F orchard samples (E) is identical (100%) but the genetic similarity between D samples and F orchard samples (E) is different from that of the above samples.

(63%)The fact that has been analyzed is recognized.

In light of the fact that the genetic similarity level in the tree sample taken at the same time shows not only the same result, but also the same result, the defendant's assertion that the period of the collection of samples is inappropriate to evaluate the genetic similarity is without merit. As above, the defendant did not appear at the place of the collection of samples at his own discretion despite the agreement with the plaintiff, and the collection of samples is conducted.