1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is subject to five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Section 4 of Paragraph 4, “B”, “(30,000,000 won as security limit)” following the following:

After the conclusion of paragraph 5, "(A)" was 5 pages 5, "(A) shall receive 50% of the net profit that the Plaintiff may obtain from the Plaintiff as a result of the implementation of the rice shipment agreement in this case, and as above, the contract to conclude a pledge agreement as well as the joint and several surety for the Plaintiff to pay to the Defendant pursuant to the rice shipment agreement in this case."

“A farming association division” in the first sentence of paragraph (1) shall be between the following:

Pursuant to paragraph 2, the term “sale” shall be as follows, and six pages shall be as follows.

The following shall be added to the continental territory of the agricultural partnership (hereinafter referred to as the "continental territory") of the 2nd paragraph, and the 6th h.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of paragraph 1, except for the use of the phrase “assumed” of paragraphs 7 and 8 as “assumed”, and therefore, it shall be quoted as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is not that the Plaintiff’s responsibility is not the Plaintiff’s failure to release unclaimed rice 49,80 Gashes into the storage shipment quantity pursuant to Article 8 of the Rice Shipping Agreement by June 30, 2012, which is the date on which the agreed shipment is completed. The Plaintiff’s interpretation of the above shipment agreement does not deem that the ground for termination of the above shipment agreement occurred only if the Plaintiff failed to ship the storage shipment by June 30, 2012. Furthermore, the Defendant did not prepare for the performance of his/her obligation in simultaneous performance relations, such as preparing 49,800 Gashes to keep and deliver to the Plaintiff. Thus, the notice of termination of the instant shipment agreement on the ground of the Plaintiff’s breach of the contract is invalid, and the above shipment agreement remains effective between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

However, after the notice of termination of the instant case, the Defendant sold to the continentale the quantity of stored shipment under the rice shipment agreement without the Plaintiff’s consent.