1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff conducted research and cultivation of organic farming seeds, such as pota, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, spath, and spath, etc., from D, the former owner of the dry field of this case,

However, around April 2013, the Defendant saw the Plaintiff’s organic farming crops which were planted in the dry field of this case. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered losses from all the organic farming seeds at the production stage after conducting research and experiments for ten years.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, against the Defendant from February 201 to April 2013, sought damages, such as the purport of the claim, within the scope of KRW 26,140,356 (=306 days x 85,426 won per day) calculated by the proportion of the daily wage of 85,426 won per day (based on February 2/4, 2012) of the total number of working days for the preservation and management of the crops of organic seeds of farming from February 201 to April 2013.

2. In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 12, and Eul evidence Nos. 6-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the dry field of this case was owned by Eul and transferred ownership to E on April 5, 2013 due to trade conducted on March 29, 2013, Eul was entrusted with the management of the dry field of this case after the above sales contract, and the defendant hedging the crops that were involved in the dry field of this case around April 2013.

On April 2013, as to whether the Plaintiff had a legitimate title to cultivate the dry field of this case at the time, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5 (Real Estate Lease Contract) that the Plaintiff was admitted as evidence cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity (Article 5 (Real Estate Lease Contract). (In addition, the Plaintiff testified that D, which was entered as the lessor, was present in this court as a witness and prepared such lease contract, and that there was no fact that the Plaintiff leased the dry field of this case). The other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is that the Plaintiff had a legitimate right to cultivate the dry field of this case.