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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract for distribution with the Defendant, but at least 60% of the contracted area due to the Defendant’s mistake in the management of distribution, there was a cruel ppuri disease and a burgical ppuri disease.

Accordingly, cancellation of the above sales contract, and repayment of the down payment of KRW 15 million paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, and compensation for damages equivalent to KRW 7,827,00 for fertilizers, agricultural chemicals, etc. supplied by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for dry field.

B. Determination 1) On August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was a dry field with approximately KRW 5,000 square meters in total from the Defendant, Jeonnam-gun, Namnam-gun, and seven parcels (hereinafter “the dry field of this case”).

(3) A sales contract for distribution to purchase a total of KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) of KRW 60,000,000, which was produced on average (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(B) On September 29, 2017, the Defendant paid the down payment of KRW 15 million to the Defendant, and on the instant sales contract, the fact that “the area confirmation is confirmed to be GPS,” as the special terms and conditions, does not conflict between the parties, and the fact that there was a brut ppuri disease and a brut disease in part of the distribution market cultivated within the field of the instant dry field, does not conflict between the parties. (2) We examine whether the instant contract was lawfully rescinded.

According to Article 9(2) of the Standard Contract for Exclusive Trading of Agricultural Products (Evidence 1) which applies to the contract of this case, where it is apparent that the buyer does not perform the normal management act (Paragraph 2), and where the buyer is notified of the buyer and the buyer is required to make a determination by the buyer and the buyer is negligent in doing so (Paragraph 3). However, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant did not perform the normal management act of dry field only with the video of No. 5 and the testimony of No. 1 trial witnessD, and E.

On the other hand, Gap evidence No. 5-C.