1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff operates a stowal yard which displays mountain eggs in the greenhouse located in Yongsan-gu, Busan Metropolitan City C. The plaintiff is operating the stowal yard which displays mountain eggs.

However, on April 3, 2019, the Defendant: (a) Haak-gu, which was kid on a new wall, kid by the Defendant, was scked and driven by the Plaintiff; and (b) on that day, she died of a f00 mari, or died of a throst, etc.

In addition, on the following day, the back-to-date that the defendant kidds into the upper walle, attacked the walle, and the plaintiff's small walle D went away, and entered the plaintiff's factory.

D confirmed that the above white district was owned by the plaintiff's factory head E, and confirmed the plaintiff's death and the death as the head of the above gymnasium, and on the following day, the defendant recognized the damage caused by the death of approximately 100 mari's chickens.

Since the possessor of an animal is liable for damages inflicted on another person, the Defendant shall compensate the Plaintiff for damages. The scope of damages is KRW 4,383,00,000, which is the price of 1,000 ccher, and damages KRW 252,00,000, which is 420,000, the number of the available eggs through mountain eggs, if the chickens was living, but if the amount of damages is deducted from the feed of KRW 5922,20,00,00, which is not used due to the death of the chickens, the amount of damages would be KRW 197,163,00.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 197,163,00 and damages for delay incurred from April 4, 2019, which is the date of tort.

2. Determination

A. We examine the following facts: (a) the Defendant was raising the white hole around April 2019; and (b) the fact that the death of a large number of chickens known by the Plaintiff around that time was not disputed between the parties; or (c) the fact that the Plaintiff died is recognized by adding the overall purport of the pleadings to the images of the evidence Nos. 2-2, 3, 4, 5, and 3.

B. However, as to whether a large number of chickens the Plaintiff was dead due to the Defendant’s white hole, the health room, and ① the white district in which the Defendant was the Plaintiff.