1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff owns the 1346.7 square meters in response to the wife population D (hereinafter “Plaintiff-owned land”). Defendant C owns E-Y 2,072 square meters and F 1,050 square meters in response to 1,050 square meters (hereinafter “Defendant-owned land”).

B. Defendant C owns two buildings of “one floor of general steel structure, lebane panel, and 392 square meters in plant-related facilities” on the ground of 2,072 square meters in the land owned by the Defendant among the land owned by the Defendant, and “one floor of general steel structure, lebane panel, and 308 square meters in plant-related facilities,” respectively. Defendant B owns one floor of general steel structure, lebane panel, and 378 square meters in plant-related facilities on the land of 1,050 square meters inF 1,050 square meters.

(hereinafter the above buildings are all referred to as “the instant stable.”

The plaintiff is rice farmer in the land owned by the plaintiff, and the defendants are raising pigs in the cattle shed in this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul 1 to 5 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion infringed the Plaintiff’s right to enjoy sunshine on the land owned by the Plaintiff due to the instant stable constructed by the Defendants.

As a result, the plaintiff's land that did not receive sunlight during the morning has a enormous obstacle to its growth.

The Defendants raised the level of banking in a state where the Defendants did not stack a stable, and due to the failure to connect the drain pipe, the Plaintiff’s land was leaked, and livestock wastewater was discharged from the livestock shed in this case into the land owned by the Plaintiff, and the soil was contaminated.

The Defendants failed to install prevention facilities for malodor generated from the livestock shed of this case, thereby making it impossible to normally refrain from the Plaintiff’s land ownership.

Such infringement of the right to sunshine, soil outflow, soil contamination, malodor, etc. as above have been reduced in yield of rice in the land owned by the plaintiff beyond the limit of admission and the quality has been lowered.

Therefore, the defendants jointly and severally suffered by the plaintiff due to the above illegal acts.