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. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the contract of this case under which the Defendant: (a) would cultivate approximately 18,000 c reclaimed land and secure the arable land (hereinafter “instant arable land”) on behalf of the Defendant in 2014; (b) the Plaintiff asserts that the lease contract for the arable land is the lease contract for the arable land; and (c) the Defendant asserts that the contract for the arable land is the sale contract for the arable land; and (d) the argument seems to have no particular difference

B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”) and around April 5, 2014, in relation to the payment of the price, it brought the compactane owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the compactane”) to the Defendant’s business office.

B. On April 14, 2014, the Defendant sold to Nonparty F, who operates the instant compact store E.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 6, witness G of the first instance court, F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. In 2014, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) leased the instant arable land as KRW 20 million from the Defendant to the Defendant for one year; (b) harvested rice that led to A; and (c) paid the said tea to the Defendant to secure this, the Plaintiff left the instant compacter owned by the Plaintiff to secure this.

However, in the process of concluding the above lease agreement, the Defendant did not notify falsely the yield in the previous year, and did not notify that the farmland is not secured or that the farmland is too high, thereby making it impossible to prevent the farmer from farming. Therefore, the Plaintiff cancelled the contract in this case and sought compensation for damages therefrom.

In addition, the Defendant’s arbitrary disposal of the instant compacter, thereby losing its ownership, and thereby causing damage to lending and borrowing other compacter and using it, thereby also seeking compensation for damages caused by the tort.

B. The Defendant’s assertion in 2013 that the Defendant cultivated from the arable land of this case is the salt map of the instant cultivated land.