Where it is proved that the farmer is not a specific crop as a result of growing seeds of a specific crop purchased from seeds, the scope of compensation for damage that the farmer is liable for the seed.

Damage caused by incomplete performance in the sale of a seed is the amount calculated by deducting the cultivation cost from the revenue that can be gained by cultivating a seed.

Articles 581 and 390 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap519) in the first instance trial

(1) The lower part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiffs shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 500,000 won to the plaintiff et al.

(2) The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

(3) All the costs of lawsuit are ten equal to that of the first and second instances and are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the remainder are assessed against the defendants.

(4) A provisional execution may be effected only for the above one.

(1) Revocation of the original judgment shall be revoked.

(2) The defendant shall pay 4,500,000 won to the plaintiffs.

(3) Judgment and a declaration of provisional execution that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials.

1. The fact that the plaintiff et al. purchased 6 Hobbes from the defendant managing a seeds and seedlings on April 1, 1971 a large scale of 36,00 won from the same defendant, there is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination on the claim for the purchase price of seeds

On April 25, 1971, the plaintiffs asserted that the above seeds were cultivated and cultivated on the 3rd 896 p.m. and 964 p.m., Hong-ri 373 p.m., Hong-ri 373 p.m., Hong-ri 896m., but they did not seem to be in spring, and the defendant who is the seller of the above seeds was reprimanded on the bridge, and the defendant was reprimanded on the c.m., the defendant produced 15 seeds and delivered the above seeds to the plaintiff on August 2, 1971. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the defendant sought payment of KRW 4,50,000 for the seeds price to the defendant. The plaintiff's claim for payment of KRW 15 seeds produced by the plaintiffs was without merit in light of the above facts, and there is no evidence that the plaintiff's remaining testimony was not established on the 15th c.m.'s assertion that the plaintiff's claim for payment of the above seeds was without merit.

3. Determination on the passive claim for damages (preliminary claim)

(1) The defendant's default (in full payment)

On April 1, 1971 between the plaintiff and the defendant, the fact that the purchase and sale contract of the same large-scale spring seed 6 Hobbebs was concluded is the same as the above, and the plaintiff et al.'s testimony and reply to the non-party 1, 2, the non-party 3, and the non-party 6's testimony and reply to the court below that the authenticity of the entire document was presumed to have been established by recognizing the public nature portion of the document, shall be added to the whole purport of the pleading. The defendant agreed on April 1, 1971 with the same large-type spring seed. Since the defendant delivered a seed, other than the seed, other than the seed, the actual delivery was delivered, and the plaintiff et al., transferred the seeds to the defendant on April 25, 1971, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the plaintiff et al. were cultivated from the beginning, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the plaintiff et al. were non-party 4's testimony.

On the other hand, when comprehensively considering the whole purport of pleading in the fact of exhibition recognition, the plaintiff et al. tried to carry on a compulsory cultivation business as a company by cutting a large spring seed with a 10 times more than another seed than that of the defendant and intending to carry on a compulsory cultivation business. At least, it should be prior to a detailed research and examination of the locational conditions, such as large-scale spring cultivating methods, farming soil and climate, etc., and further, it should have purchased seeds with a preparatory knowledge about the seed so that it can not be smooth even if it is the most important seed purchase. However, the plaintiff et al. failed to comply with such due to the failure of the defendant's due to the fact that the defendant et al. will issue the seeds on the defendant's seeds and seedlings only if it was the defendant's horse, and it did not go against the defendant's duty of compensation for damages due to the fact that it did not meet the defendant's duty of compensation for damages due to a lack of sufficient knowledge of the defendant's remaining damages due to the growth of the seeds or the seeds.

Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by incomplete performance of the seed sales contract on April 1, 1971.

(2) Damages suffered by the plaintiffs

In full view of the purport of the pleading in the testimony of Non-party 3, non-party 7, 8, and 9, the plaintiff et al. would have been able to produce the same 29,760 square village 16 square village 29,760 square village 29,00 square village 16 square village 29,00 in total of the dry field area of the two lots of land in exhibition if he et al. were cultivated with the same spring tweet 3, the plaintiff et al. transferred with the same spring twelth which is the object of the contract of April 1, 1971. The fact that the above twelth village 19,7,8, and 9, the market price of the above twelth village 197, which was the date of the above twelth village 196,70, and there was no other evidence that the plaintiff et al. would have been able to obtain the income of the witness twelth 19606.

Thus, the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's default (in full payment) is the total income of KRW 918,604 after deducting KRW 271,796, which is the cost from KRW 1,190,40.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s negligence was found in the occurrence or expansion of the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation (in full payment) and damages therefrom, and thus, if such negligence is offset by negligence, the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable to compensate for to the Plaintiff is recognized as KRW 500,000.

(3) Since the period for which the Plaintiff et al. can cultivate the above dry field 1,860 is until the end of November, 1971, the Plaintiff et al. may obtain 58,000 Dob gold (30 x18,000) by cultivating the above dry field 1,860 and growing the 10 Dobp 18,60 Dobp from the above dry field 1,860 to the above dry field 18,60 Dobp 18,60. The Plaintiff et al. could obtain Dobp 558,00 Dobp Dop 93,198 Dop 93,198 Dop 464,802 Dop dump dump dump.

4. The defendant, as well as in the seed trade in Korea, and even if there was an unrefluent result in the seed trade in a foreign country, even if there was no compensation for more than the first seed price sold in the seed trade (if incomplete, it is assumed that there was incomplete performance) is a commercial custom in the seed trade, and the defendant stated the same purport in the seed package. Thus, the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff was eventually silent, but the defendant did not sell the seeds to the plaintiff. However, the defendant's testimony of the non-party 11 of the witness at the trial as shown in the argument that there was such a commercial custom is consistent with the defendant's assertion that the defendant's testimony is not believed, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was such a commercial custom, such as the defendant's assertion, and it is not possible to find that there was a commercial custom in Korea, as alleged by the defendant, even after examining ex officio.

5. If so, it is reasonable to accept the plaintiffs' claim of this case within the above limit, and the remaining claims are groundless, and thus, they are dismissed. Since the original judgment partially renders this conclusion and all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above quoted limit in the original judgment shall be revoked and accepted, and the remaining appeals of the plaintiff are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89, 92, 93, 96, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the imposition of litigation costs and the issuance of provisional execution.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)