The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. The facts under the basis of facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as set out in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers).

The plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointed C are persons running wholesale and retail business in the same manner, and the defendant is a corporation established around March 2016 for the purpose of distributing, processing, selling, etc. agricultural products as its main business to improve productivity.

B. Around June 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party supplied to the Defendant a number of 1,34 million won cultivated by them. A criminal complaint was filed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party, asserting that D, who served as the representative director of the Defendant corporation, acquired the said D without paying KRW 1,34 million out of the total 364 million delivery price of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party.

C. However, on May 21, 2019, E prosecutor belonging to the Daegu District Public Prosecutor’s Office confirmed that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party provided more than 10 vehicles, but not more than 7 vehicles claimed by the appointed party. At the time, the increased price was not specified in detail, and 10 copies of measurement confirmations submitted by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party are only data which measure the weight of the increase in time on the vehicle, and one of them overlaps with each other, the fact of accusation was not proven.

On the other hand, the plaintiff (Appointed) and the appointed party submitted a petition to the Seosan Police Station before the criminal complaint was filed, and the contents of the petition were supplied to the defendant on the part of the defendant, and the number of the eight vehicles increased, and thus, they were embezzled and punished.

2. The Plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed asserted to the effect that they failed to receive some payments from the Defendant during the period of June 2017, however, the arguments of the Plaintiff (Appointed) and the Appointed are inconsistent.