1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The old-jin Fisheries Fisheries Partnership, in which the Plaintiff allegedly joined as a member, (hereinafter referred to as the “instant English association”), purchased the language net, etc. equivalent to KRW 31,226,940 from the Plaintiff until November 28, 2013, but did not pay the price for the said goods to the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, Article 16(7) of the former Act on Fostering and Supporting Agricultural and Fisheries Enterprises provides that “Except as otherwise provided for in this Act, with respect to agricultural partnership and fisheries partnership, the provisions pertaining to partnership under the Civil Act shall apply mutatis mutandis.” The Defendants, who are members of the English association of this case, are obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above goods payment obligation of the English association of this case equally to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay to the Plaintiff each of KRW 15,613,470 (=31,226,940 ± 2) and damages for delay on each of the said money respectively.

2. Each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone cannot be viewed as bearing the plaintiff a total amount of money equivalent to 31,226,940 won against the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion. Even if the English union of this case bears a product-price obligation as alleged by the plaintiff against the plaintiff, the application of the law is in principle permissible within the extent not contrary to its nature. The reason why the Civil Act considers the obligation of the union as the obligation of the union members under the Civil Act is merely merely a contract between the union members, but is not a subject of the right and obligation, and therefore it is not a subject of the ownership of the right and obligation. In light of the fact that the legal principle that "the obligation of the union members" is separate from the union members, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the legal relationship of the agricultural association that becomes the subject of independent right and obligation does not apply.