1. The plaintiff's claim that is changed in exchange in the trial is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant, the representative director of the incorporated farming association of this case, lent the name of the above incorporated farming association and run the agricultural products distribution business individually with the consent of its members. The plaintiff also sold agricultural products to the defendant. The defendant purchased agricultural products equivalent to the total amount of KRW 4,893,600 from the plaintiff until July 30, 2009 (hereinafter "agricultural products of this case") but did not pay the above goods price to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above goods price of KRW 4,893,60 and delay damages.

2. In light of the overall purport of evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 2, the court below held that the defendant, the representative director of the above farming association company of this case, was operating the agricultural products distribution business from around 2003 to the defendant's account by lending the name of the above farming association company, and on the other hand, the plaintiff stated in the court of first instance that "at the time of delivery of goods, the above farming association company was consigned to the above farming association company, and the defendant was found to have operated the business in the last course of the investigation," and that the plaintiff is a member of the above farming association company, and the plaintiff's sales revenue of the agricultural products supplied by the plaintiff was deposited to the plaintiff through the financial account of the above farming association company, it is reasonable to deem that the plaintiff is not the defendant but the above farming association company. Thus, each statement of evidence No. 2 and 3 as to the plaintiff's sales of the agricultural products of this case is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was selling the agricultural products of this case to the defendant.

In addition, even if the defendant is the party to the instant agricultural partnership, he shall be the party to the instant contract.