beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following judgments as to the plaintiff's assertion and evidence, and thus, this case is quoted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination on the plaintiff's assertion and evidence
A. As a result of the first analysis on each of the feed produced and sold by the Defendants, once all of the reaction to train antibiotics ingredients occurred, the Defendants were deemed to have produced and supplied feed contaminated by antibiotics to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendants directly removed and collected feed samples collected from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s supply of each of the feed from the Defendants does not have any possibility that feed would have been contaminated by antibiotics after being supplied with each of the feed. The Plaintiff asserted that, since there was no fact that, after being supplied with the Defendants with each of the feed in question, the Plaintiff was using the antibiotics which are suspected of causing the pollution of the feed in C, the Plaintiff was entirely aware that the Defendants discovered the sphC container from the upper half of the air conditioning of C farm and the sphC container, the Defendants were issued after supplying the feed to the Plaintiff, but the Defendants could not be deemed to have supplied only the Plaintiff with the feed in light of the fact that the Defendants supplied the feed in the process of delivering the feed to the Plaintiff without issuing it.
According to the evidence Nos. 14-1, 2, and 15 of the evidence No. 14-1, 14-2, and 15, it is recognized that Defendant Authorized Livestock Co., Ltd. issued and issued a detailed statement of transaction with respect to “Urban Co., Ltd.” supplied to the Plaintiff on July 11, 2014 and July 24, 2014; on the other hand, with respect to feed supplied on July 17, 2014, the Plaintiff issued only a note of a delivery engineer stating “7/17 C 150 note” to the Plaintiff.
However, according to Gap evidence No. 16, the records are as follows.