1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) supplied the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from May 1, 201 to May 19, 201.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 201 and April 201, the Defendant promoted “C” fertilizers (hereinafter “instant fertilizers”) to farmers residing in Kimcheon-si, including the Plaintiff, around February 201 and around April 201.

B. From May 1, 201 to May 19, 2011, the Plaintiff received approximately 94,070 km from the Defendant and sprayed fertilizers to 335.965 complex of farmland of 32 farmers as shown in the attached Table.

C. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for KRW 32,972,00 of the fertilizer price by mail proving the content of April 2, 2013, by the content-certified mail as of May 23, 2013, by the content-certified mail as of June 18, 2013, and by the content-certified mail as of June 18, 2013. In light of the circumstances difficult for farmers by mail proving the content-certified mail as of July 7, 2014, the Defendant claimed KRW 19,783,200 of the fertilizer price and claimed KRW 19,783,200 of the fertilizer price.

On September 18, 2014, the Defendant applied for provisional seizure of the real estate owned by the Plaintiff as the claim amounting to KRW 19,783,200, and the Jeonju District Court rendered the above application on September 19, 2014.

(No dispute exists concerning the provisional seizure of Jeonju District Court 2014Kadan711, hereinafter referred to as "provisional seizure of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant supplied the instant fertilizers to 32 farmers, including the Plaintiff, and asked the Plaintiff to spread the instant fertilizers to 10,000 won per complex (60 square meters). Accordingly, the Plaintiff spreaded the instant fertilizers to 32 farmers in the aggregate of 335.965 square meters.

On April 2, 2013, the Defendant began to demand the Plaintiff to pay fertilizers to farmers, and the Plaintiff merely spread the fertilizer of this case upon receiving a request from the Defendant for a fertilizer spraying service, not concluding a goods supply contract.

In the event of damage to the fertilizer of this case, the defendant promised to assume full responsibility for the damage to the fertilizer of this case, and the share of the fertilizer of this case is proper.