1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 19, 2018 to December 19, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff, at the time of the occurrence of the liability for damages, concluded a sales contract on 60 peach tree seedlings of the instant plant variety from the Defendant, but, on July 3, 2014, the fact that the seeds and seedlings 60 weeks supplied by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant seedlings”) that the Defendant supplied to the Plaintiff on or around July 3, 2014 is not a “sulfur system plant variety” may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties, or in view of the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in the evidence Nos. 1 through 7, and Nos. 1

As such, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages, since the Defendant’s supply of peach tree seedlings different from that of the contract to the Plaintiff constitutes nonperformance due to incomplete performance.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that when supplying different kinds of varieties under the contract with the plaintiff, the defendant should compensate for them by making adjoining or re-supplying one-year seedlings.

According to the statement of the evidence No. 14, "A" in the invoice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant shall be effective as a quality guarantee, and shall be re-supplyed with the correct variety at the time the variety of seedlings sold in lots is different.

The fact that “the fact” is printed is recognized.

However, it is not possible to interpret that the above entry is clearly indicated by the Defendant’s ex post facto management method, or that the Defendant’s default liability itself is excluded from the source. If the Defendant either provided a bridge or re- supplied a 1-year plant nursery nursery, the scope of compensation for damages may be reduced due to such act. However, the Defendant did not take such measures.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The court shall consider the whole purport of pleadings and all circumstances acknowledged as the result of examination of evidence, if it is deemed that the scope of damages has occurred, but it is extremely difficult to prove the specific amount of damages in light of the nature of the case.