1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff both by the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except in cases where the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

O The plaintiff alleged that the head of the defendant's association promised to extend the contract term of the instant sales contract to the plaintiff on March 25, 2016 until the end of July 2016, 17 and 20th of the 9th 17th 17th 20th 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of Gap evidence 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit

" ........"

(B) As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the president of the Defendant Union promised to extend the term of the instant sales contract to the Plaintiff on March 25, 2016 by July 2016. Each description of the evidence Nos. 3, 9, and 11 (including each number) and the testimony of the witness I of the instant court (hereinafter “each evidence”).

According to the above, it is recognized that the plaintiff representative director and the president of the defendant association discussed whether the term of the contract of the plaintiff J and the president of the defendant association should be extended until July 2016 to the end of the year.

However, even according to each of the above evidence, it is only recognized that the defendant did not definitely extend the contract period to the plaintiff, but did not confirm whether the plaintiff can receive financial support from the Small and Medium Business Administration and further discuss it again.

In addition, as of December 31, 2015, the term of the instant sales contract expires, the fact that agricultural products not taken by the Plaintiff from the Defendant pursuant to the instant sales contract had been fluorous rice with bedne and bean, not influoral rice, is recognized as above, and according to the statement of evidence Nos. 21 through 24, the term of the separate agricultural products sales contract concluded between L who is the spouse of J and the Defendant, the representative director of the Plaintiff and the Defendant on December 31, 2015.