손해배상(기)
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a person who conducts a balwing business (around 140 copies) in the Haak-gun, Gyeongnam-gun C.
B. On July 20, 2016, around July 20, the Defendant spreaded agrochemicals (name of products: Biga, luxin) on or around August 19, 2016, and agrochemicals (name of products: 2-lanes) on or around August 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff’s immediate adjacent discussions (hereinafter “instant adjacent discussions”) and on or around the adjacent discussions in the manner of air pest control.
C. Around September 9, 2016, the Defendant tried to spread an agrochemical (name of a product) at the same place once again on the same three-lanes. However, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the death of a group as an agrochemical scattered on the previous ( August 19, 2016). As the Plaintiff raised an objection against the death of a group, the Plaintiff did not spread the relevant pesticide on the adjacent issues of the instant case, but spread the said pesticide only on other adjacent issues.
On September 13, 2016, the Plaintiff reported to the Defendant that he/she suffered from a mass loss of death, as a secondary pesticide spraying ( August 19, 2016). On September 23, 2016, at the Defendant’s request, a damage adjusting business operator visited the Plaintiff’s mass furnal and confirmed that approximately KRW 40 of the household 40 was abolished until then.
E. On September 2016, 2016, the employees of the Haban Military Service visited the Plaintiff’s head of the Haban Military Service at his request and collected three maths of the dead bees at the site, and conducted diagnostic tests. Among them, Ethachlorop was detected at the 1stma.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 1, 4 through 6, 8, 9, 11 evidence, Eul 1, 2 and 6 evidence, the records and images, the result of the plaintiff's personal examination, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows: (a) the Defendant was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred due to the Plaintiff’s tort, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s brine was collectively abolished, and the Plaintiff suffered damages for not producing the altered, due to agrochemicals spreaded three times on July 20, 2016 (1j), August 19, 2016 (2j), and September 9, 2016 (3j).
3. Determination
A. In general, a claim for damages caused by an illegal act is filed.