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. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased 13 studio seeds of “Hysung Plus Slus Slus Slus Slus” imported and sold by the Defendant through B (hereinafter “instant seed”); (b) opened on October 2, 2013 and sold the seeds, but most of the seeds were not generated.

B. After opening the instant seeds on October 2, 2013, the Plaintiff kept the Plaintiff’s seeds in the storage box of the spawn in the middle order of November 201, 2013. After then placing them in an envelope, the Plaintiff sent them to the Gyeongnam Agricultural Technology Institute as of December 17, 2013 and the National Seed Institute as of December 30, 2013 for quality verification of seeds.

C. On January 2, 2014, it was analyzed that the production ratio of the instant seeds was only 2% as a result of the acquisition and examination of the instant seeds from the national seed resources.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant sold the Plaintiff the instant seeds, where the Plaintiff had a defect in the production rate of which was low, and thereby the Plaintiff was unable to obtain profit from the Plaintiff’s sale of the seeds of this case, which would have been 12,486,936 won due to the Plaintiff’s failure to obtain profit from the Plaintiff’s sale of the seeds of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages based on the product liability as the manufacturer and seller of the instant seeds or tort liability under the Civil Act.

3. The judgment on the claim of product liability is the liability for damages to the manufacturer, etc. in the event of damage to life, body, or property other than the product itself due to the defect that has a lack of safety ordinarily expected to be expected to be the product. Damage incurred to the product itself due to the lack of product suitability is not the subject of product liability.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da26593 delivered on February 5, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 98Da35525 delivered on July 28, 2000; and