1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds alleged by the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance are not different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance rejecting the plaintiff's claim can be deemed legitimate even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is examined again by examining the statements or images of Gap evidence (including the number of serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) additionally submitted in the court of first instance along with the plaintiff's assertion.

Accordingly, the reasoning for this Court regarding the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “determination as to the dismissal or addition of 2. Grievance or addition” with respect to the part to be dismissed or added, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the first instance judgment. As such, this Court cites it as it is in accordance

2. Each “D” of Chapter 9 and Chapter 6, Chapter 19, respectively, shall be raised to “U” as “U” in the judgment of the court of first instance as to the dismissal or addition.

On July 26, 2016, the first instance judgment of the court of first instance was first followed, and the first instance " July 26, 2017" was "as of July 26, 2016."

In the first instance judgment, the part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the Plaintiff could have received an amount equivalent to KRW 809,690,00,00, and in this context, the profit to be earned by the Plaintiff would have received a minimum of KRW 400,000,00, the margin calculated by subtracting KRW 221,114,172 from cost of KRW 809,69,690,000 (=809,690,000 - 221,114,172) from cost of KRW 588,575,828.

After the first instance judgment No. 10 of the first instance judgment’s No. 4, “no evidence” was found. In full view of the results of the fact-finding conducted by the head of the Daegu Northern District Headquarters of this Court (hereinafter “head of the headquarters”), “The revocation of the approval of direct production of Q on August 10, 2016 is a revocation that the approval of direct production was revoked by mistake, and the Act on the Promotion of Development of Agricultural Products does not impose restrictions on the period of the second request for direct production in the case of such revocation.”

The 10th parallel 9 to 12th parallel are as follows:

"2. The plaintiff is the case of this case."