1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 4,780,000, and the total of KRW 1,900,000, and the total of KRW 1,900,000, and the total of KRW 4,780,00, and requested the Defendant to return the receipt and the settlement balance, but did not receive it.

As a result, the Plaintiff suffered losses in addition to KRW 1,183,050 in comparison with the case of receiving a deduction of expenses due to the payment of capital gains tax on the factory site.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,183,050.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 6,00,000 per share for the purchase of 1,833 ASEAN seedlings (3,000 per share) to the Defendant, and confirmed the remaining seedlings for the relocation of the seedlings only 424 weeks.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to return to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 4,227,00 equivalent to the amount of KRW 1,409 for deficient seedlings.

2. Determination

(a) 1-A;

As to the assertion of claim, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant is liable to submit to the plaintiff a receipt regarding the cost of maintaining the factory site, the cost of partition survey, etc.

Even if the defendant is not liable for damages, it cannot be recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

(b) subparagraph 1-b;

According to the reasoning of evidence No. 5, there is no dispute between the parties or the defendant as to the plaintiff's assertion, it is acknowledged that there was a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the purchase of a tree nursery by the plaintiff and the defendant for a disaster period in the plaintiff's dry field, and that the plaintiff's dry field was 424 weeks since April 10, 2016.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and the entire argument.