All appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be all assessed against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows evidence (Evidence A to No. 5 and No. 10) submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justifiable.

Therefore, the reasoning for the statement in this case is as follows, except for the correction of the part concerning the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since the court below stated that "the plaintiff agreed to extend the contract term of this case from July 6, 2016 to the defendant's right to the end of July 6, 2016, the defendant engaged in the act of disposal in this case without authority. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement as alleged by the plaintiff, as evidence submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other supporting evidence, and this part of the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted) as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus

2. As to the amended portion of the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the overall title No. 6-9 of the judgment of the court of first instance), the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s partnership’s original owner-E of the “C” on March 25, 2016, and that, during the contract period of this case, the captain made a voluntary disposal of the stock even though he/she made a verbal promise to extend the term until May 2016, and until July 20, 2016, the captain made a voluntary disposal of the stock even though he/she made a voluntary disposal of the agricultural products, taking into account the very important agricultural products transaction characteristics, etc., the provision on the extension of contract period and the time of sale under Article 2 of the contract of this case constitutes grounds for termination of the contract by infringing on the Plaintiff’s oral agreement or reasonable expectations

According to the statement and voice of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 9, it is recognized that E, the actual owner of "C" in the plaintiff's operation, sought F from the head of the defendant association around March 2016, requesting the extension of the contract and dialogue between them.

However, the above facts and quoted evidences are examined.