1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Around June 201, the Defendant entered into a contract on ginseng cultivation (hereinafter “instant contract”) with three persons, including Gyeonggi-do-gun, D, E, and F on a total of 16,420 square meters of land for each of the miscellaneous land in Gyeonggi-do-gun, D, E, and F (hereinafter “instant farmland”).

B. On June 2013, with the Defendant’s consent, the Plaintiff succeeded to the status of a party to the instant contract as to 10,000 square meters, which is the arable area B, among the instant farmland.

C. After that, on September 2015, the Defendant conducted a remaining pesticide inspection on the ginseng cultivated in the instant cultivation area (hereinafter “instant ginseng”) on the ginseng, which was cultivated in September 2015, 2015, around September 30, 2015. On September 30, 2015, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant contract and the exemption from the purchase of the instant ginseng.

Meanwhile, on October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff sold the ginseng of this case to G, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 8 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff used DT in the instant ginseng cultivation process, and as a result of the appraisal conducted in accordance with the procedure for the preservation of evidence, DT was not detected on the remaining three lots of land except Gyeonggi-gun Land among the instant cultivated land. Therefore, the Defendant’s notification of exemption from the purchase of all of the instant ginseng was unlawful.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the amount stated in the claim corresponding to the difference between the purchase price of the defendant's third class goods in 2015 and the sale price of the plaintiff's G, etc. as compensation for damages.

B. According to the instant contract (Evidence No. 1), the Defendant’s termination of the contract may be possible where agrochemicals such as DT are detected from ginseng as a result of safety inspection in excess of the permissible residual amounts.