1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C for the exchange of real estate owned by the Plaintiff with D land at the time of resident residence owned by the said Defendant, and Defendant B mediated the conclusion of the said exchange contract.

B. At the time of the conclusion of the above exchange contract, Defendant C was residing in Korea at the time of the above exchange contract, and Defendant C paid KRW 1 million as the rent for the above land to the Plaintiff in return for Defendant C’s continuing farming in Korea from the above land.

C. After that, the Plaintiff expressed to Defendant C the intent to participate in the harvest of Posium. Around September 2010, the Plaintiff and Defendant C agreed to jointly bear the cost of harvesting Posium, and the Plaintiff partly disbursed the cost of harvesting Posium.

On October 29, 2010, the Plaintiff demanded Defendant C to divide the sales proceeds by pointing out various problems related to the exchange contract. Accordingly, on November 30, 2010, Defendant C demanded on November 30, 2010 the Plaintiff to share the expenses incurred in keeping spores harvested from the Plaintiff in the warehouse, and the expenses incurred in making spores. However, the Plaintiff did not share the expenses.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that, although Defendant C agreed to divide the sales profit after harvest to the Plaintiff by 50%, the Plaintiff embezzled the profit without paying it to the Plaintiff, the Defendants jointly and severally asserted that the Defendants are liable to pay KRW 39,460,000 to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefor.

As to this, Defendant C agreed to share the cost, but failed to perform it, and there was no benefit from circulation and probability, so the claim of this case cannot be complied with. Defendant B, as a broker, is also harvested.