1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 10, 2014, the Defendant entered into an agricultural product standard contract (contract cultivation) with the Plaintiff on June 10, 2014 that the Defendant sells to the Plaintiff at KRW 9,000,000, the remainder of 70% of the purchase price was to be paid 40 days after the strike, and at the time of the contract entered into, the following special agreement was entered into:

Since the 40-day management formula (40-day management formula), all management, such as the distribution of the object, the prevention of damage from blight and harmful insects, etc., shall be decided by the purchaser, and the damage caused by the shortage of management, damage from blight and harmful insects, natural disasters, etc. shall be borne by the purchaser.

B. The Plaintiff’s purchase price was the Defendant, KRW 13,500,000 on January 20, 2014, and the same year

4. November 19,500,000 won, and the same year.

7. On 21.21, the Plaintiff paid KRW 99,530,000, respectively, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff paid the same year.

4. 30. 30. 7,475,00 won are to be borne by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff has paid the same year.

7. Around 21.21. Around 21.m., the Defendant accepted a non-living which was cultivated at least 15,500 square meters

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was unable to ship 12,00 square meters (12,000 square meters) out of the Defendant’s cultivated, and thus, the contract was rescinded due to reasons attributable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant should return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 22,50,000,00 for the amount of KRW 63,000,000 for the amount of KRW 50,000 for which the Plaintiff was unable to harvest at all due to the severe injury to the Plaintiff.

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to prove that the Plaintiff was a critical disease to the extent that the purpose of the above contract could not be achieved on or around July 21, 2014, which was acquired without leave from the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not justified as the grounds for cancellation are not recognized.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.