1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

1. The reasoning of the lower court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it shall be quoted in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action and whether the period of prescription is excessive, etc. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action (A) and the existence of the grounds for disciplinary action (A) C used money to purchase raw ginseng cultivated land by lending money from the Intervenor through the instant monetary lending transaction, and the Intervenor knowingly conducted the instant monetary lending transaction. As such, the instant monetary lending transaction constitutes an intervenor’s equity investment in interested parties. As such, the instant monetary lending transaction constitutes the Intervenor’s equity investment in the Intervenor, and ② the Intervenor’s participation in the assessment of the planned arable area and the unit price for raw ginseng purchase, which

B. The Defendant asserted that the statute of limitations was not imposed on the Defendant’s assertion that the last monetary lending transaction between the Intervenor and C took place on March 5, 2010, and thus, the statute of limitations on the instant monetary lending transaction took place from March 5, 2010 at the latest.

However, it should be deemed that the prescription period for a monetary lending and lending transaction does not run until the obligation based on the monetary lending and lending agreement expires. Since C, on April 5, 201, as well as C, through E, prepared a letter of waiver of the remaining obligation due to the monetary lending and lending transaction of this case to C at the time of December 12, 2014, it is deemed that the obligation of the Intervenor and C continues even after March 5, 2010, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the prescription period for the monetary lending and lending transaction of this case has run.

In addition, the Intervenor.