1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff runs the print manufacturing business under the trade name of “G”, and the agricultural partnership C is a company that manufactures, processes, and sells agricultural and fishery products, and the Defendant is a director of the agricultural partnership C.

B. The Plaintiff did not receive KRW 18,731,470 out of the price of goods, even though it produced and supplied printed materials to the agricultural partnership C between January 15, 2002 and August 26, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Article 57 of the Commercial Act applies mutatis mutandis to the Plaintiff’s assertion of agricultural and fisheries business entities (hereinafter “Agricultural and Fisheries Business Entities Act”). If an incorporated farming association bears obligations for an act that constitutes a commercial activity for all its members, the association members shall be jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 57 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant, who is a member of the agricultural partnership C, is jointly and severally liable to pay the price for the goods to the plaintiff.

B. The largest reason for deeming a partnership's obligation as a partner's obligation under the Civil Act is that a partnership is merely a contract between partners under the Civil Act, but is not a subject of ownership of rights and obligations. Therefore, only a partner can be the subject of ownership of rights and obligations in legal relations surrounding a partnership.

However, Article 16(3) of the Agricultural and Fisheries Business Act provides that “A farming association shall be a juristic person, and shall be established by registering its establishment at the seat of its principal office.” Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the legal principle of “a partner’s obligation” does not apply mutatis mutandis to the legal relationship of a farming association, which is an independent person separate from a member, which

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is without merit.