1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's ground for the above revocation is against the defendant.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 2015, the Plaintiff’s gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) purchased plastic vinyl (the name of the lux Luxembourg 100; hereinafter “the instant vinyl”) produced by the Defendant for the co-defendants of the first instance trial from the Defendant to purchase at KRW 4,325,00,00; and (b) installed four vinyls in the dry field located in the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (c) planted the maternal species.

However, since the instant vinyl lacks the function to prevent wintering phenomenon, the instant vinyl was unable to grow normally within the said vinyl house from November 2015 to February 2016. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred due to the decline in the growth of his/her care, as a result of the incomplete performance of obligations.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion 1) A person who purchased the vinyl of this case from the defendant is D, and the plaintiff purchased the vinyl of this case with the defendant (hereinafter "the contract of this case").

(2) Although the Plaintiff was a party to the purchase contract, there is no objective proof as to the amount of damages, even if the Plaintiff was unable to grow normally due to the defect in the vinyl of this case, or there is no objective proof as to the amount of damages.

Furthermore, if the defendant's liability for damages is recognized, the damages should be offset against the remaining amount of KRW 3,800,000, out of the sales proceeds of the vinyl, etc. of this case that the defendant should receive from the plaintiff.

2. On the premise that the Plaintiff is a party to the instant contract, the Plaintiff sought the Defendant’s liability for nonperformance, which first examines whether the Plaintiff is a party to the instant contract.

The following circumstances, i.e., a person who directly purchased the vinyl of this case from the Defendant, are D, and the Defendant is drafted, by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 18, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including paper numbers):