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.

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On July 2010, E Agricultural Association Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) concluded an oral cultivation agreement for environment-friendly agricultural products to be supplied with a garment and spawn cultivated under the Environment-Friendly Agriculture Act with the Defendant during the middle of July 2010, and supplied the Defendant with an advance payment amounting to KRW 30 million (250 kg net 20 g net 250 g net 20,000, and the two-wave seeds (42 cans) worth KRW 2310,000 around A around 2310,000.

However, around July 7, 2011, the Defendant only supplied E with 1,400 kgs in an amount equivalent to KRW 6,982,910, and refused to supply the remaining agricultural products. Since the contract cultivation agreement between E and the Defendant was implicitly terminated, the Defendant bears the duty to restore according to the termination of the contract.

B. If the above agreement on the cultivation of environment-friendly agricultural products between E and the Defendant is not acknowledged, the Defendant supplied Maymp seeds and Maymp seeds from E without any legal cause and acquired unjust gains equivalent to KRW 3,2310,000 in total.

C. As the Plaintiff succeeded to all rights and obligations of E by absorption and merger of E on January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for payment of KRW 25,327,090 remaining after deducting KRW 6,982,910 from the aforementioned advance payment of KRW 3,2310,000.

2. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, and 11 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone entered into an agreement for the cultivation of eco-friendly agricultural products with E and the defendant.

It is not sufficient to recognize that E provided the Defendant with a total of KRW 3,2310,00 in advance, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

E is deemed to have prepared a contract when entering into a contract cultivation agreement with a number of farmers, but it is also a contract between the defendant and the plaintiff on the contract cultivation agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant.