1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. From September 2013, around 2013, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, approximately KRW 2,600 farmland and plastic houses located in Hongsung-gun, Hongsung-gun were leased and provided, and a temporary partnership agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, with the content that the Defendant would cultivate sects, etc. and sell profits in the following year to reflect the profits.

B. In accordance with the foregoing business agreement, the Plaintiff provided farmland and vinyls, and the Defendant cultivated and sold the right wave in the said vinyl house through D from September 2013 to February 2014, and the period of shipment of the right wave expires, and the business agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

ii) the witness E or D’s testimony in this Court and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The Plaintiff, which is the cause of the claim, claims against the Defendant for KRW 20 million out of the total amount of KRW 15.4 million and KRW 5.2 million out of the total amount of KRW 20.6 million in order to ensure the Defendant’s net sales amount of KRW 5.2 million.

Determination on the Grounds for Appeal

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant did not unilaterally sell and dispose of the proceeds from the sales of harvest and sales without disclosing the details of harvest and sales to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's profits cannot be seen as much. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 15.4 million to the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff's claim for this part of the sales contract is premised on the premise that the proceeds from the business were generated as the result of the business, and there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the proceeds accrued to the defendant only with the evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Rather, according to the reference materials, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant embezzled the sales proceeds of the spam, and filed a complaint with the Seo-gu District Prosecutors' Office of Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office by 2018 type 1878, but the prosecutor in charge did not keep the profits of the actual spam farmer in this case.