The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. On March 18, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was awarded a successful bid for a uniform-type facility located in six lots, such as Jeondo-gun D, Jeonnam-do, where the Victim B engaged in the Da and Jeondo-type farming business (hereinafter “Seoul-do-gun”) on the part of the Defendant.

On December 27, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the victim who continues to engage in the culture business, and did not execute delivery, and the victim continued to engage in the culture business in the culture of the culture of the culture of the culture of the culture of the culture of the culture of the culture.

On May 13, 2014, from around 09:00 to around 10:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) from E Co., Ltd. located in Jeonnamdo D, the Defendant reported the site director of the Defendant Company F and the vice president G telephone from the Defendant Company; and (b) from the victim, the electric e-mail take-over pumps are operated by telephone from the victim; (c) however, (d) air has failed to supply seawater to the e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail e-mail; (b) the Defendant was demanded to allow the Defendant to enter the mechanical room located in the Defendant Company to take-over the e-mail e-mail e

As a result, the defendant interfered with the victim's whole culture by force.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated in this Court, namely, ① the victim abused the difficulty of real enforcement by asserting the right to claim against C, the former owner, in order to receive compensation from the Defendant, and disregards the order of the delivery of real estate by asserting the right to claim against the Defendant in order to receive compensation; ② the victim continues to possess and use the former culture in the form of a new spawn while cultivating the spawn in the year 2014; ② the victim was in the form of the former spawn or frequent entry into the machinery room after the acquisition of the Defendant’s ownership is not by legitimate title or the consent of the Defendant.