1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 25,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from November 8, 2014 to the day of full payment.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 and 3, taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

On November 12, 2013, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant a thing that the Defendant cultivated on the land located in Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, 6500 square meters. The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Defendant for the sale of KRW 78 million for the purchase price, KRW 25 million for the intermediate payment of KRW 10 million on the date of the contract, until May 31, 2014, and KRW 43 million for the remainder payment of KRW 43 million until August 31, 2014, respectively, and the shipment period of KRW 30 million until October 31, 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant contract”). B. The Defendant’s non-afforested (hereinafter referred to as “instant non-existence”).

The contract of this case is to cancel the damage caused by a studio or a difficult studio, and to manage the damage by the time of shipment.

(i) The meaning of spraying and managing pesticides is added to the special agreement.

C. By June 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 35 million to the Defendant as down payment and intermediate payment, and paid a total of KRW 40 million by additionally paying KRW 5 million, and paid KRW 3,400,000 to the Defendant for the seeds of this case.

There was a dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the occurrence of difficult jobs in the instant case and the reduction of the price therefrom.

E. Around September 22, 2014, the Defendant disposed of the instant non-litigation to D, a third party, other than the Plaintiff, KRW 60 million.

F. On September 19, 2014, the Defendant remitted the intermediate payment of KRW 15 million under the instant contract and the seed price of KRW 3.4 million to the Plaintiff’s account.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts (1) that the instant contract was impossible to implement because the Defendant disposed of the instant Non-Party to a third party, not the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant contract on January 8, 2015 due to the delivery of a preparatory document as of January 8, 2015, and restitution of KRW 25 million, which was not paid by the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 40 million - 15 million).