A. Defendant B’s KRW 12,753,00 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from June 8, 2013 to March 6, 2014.

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 6, 10 through 13, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and appraiser D's appraisal result, the Plaintiff may each recognize the fact that the Plaintiff obtained approval to use a forest E-Gun area of 127,174 square meters in Seosan-dong, Seosan-dong, Seosan-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, for the use of the forest area of 127,174 square meters on the ground and 2 meters in width and height, about 5 meters in length, and created both fishing grounds on the ground; Defendant B destroyed the embankment around June 8, 2013; Defendant B damaged the embankment at around 09:00 on June 8, 2013; Defendant B required 12,753,000 won to restore the bank to

Therefore, barring any other special circumstances, Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff the recovery cost of KRW 12,753,00 due to tort damages and damages for delay at each rate of KRW 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from June 8, 2013 to March 6, 2014, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, and KRW 20% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. (1) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to Defendant B’s claim (1) is that the Defendant suffered damages by discharging water from the Plaintiff’s two fishing grounds to a factory owned by the Defendant, which belongs to the Defendant, and by piling up the bank of the fish farm in the vicinity, and by piling up the soil bed, the Defendant sustained damages from the Plaintiff’s damage claim and the amount equal to the Plaintiff’

(2) The evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment alone lacks to acknowledge the Defendant’s damage caused by the Plaintiff’s fish farm, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the damage. Even if the damage was acknowledged, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff was caused by intentional tort, and the above Defendant cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff by offsetting (Article 496 of the Civil Act). The Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a) The purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: Gap's liability for damages has occurred in each entry of evidence Nos. 1 to 4 and 7 to 9.