1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. In 2013, the Plaintiff leased the land located in the Chungcheongbuk-gun C from Nonparty D and planted the worship around August of the same year.

From November 9, 2013 to December 23, 2013, the Plaintiff shipped approximately KRW 5,277, which is a part of the worship cultivated as above, on five occasions, and sold it to the Suwon and Water Company located in the water source.

B. On December 9, 2013, the Defendant planted 100 trees, such as king trees, etc., to the front-ro of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

At the same time, the land located in the above C remains unpaid.

C. The Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant to the effect that the Defendant interfered with the transportation of trees by planting trees on the farm road, which is the passage through which the Plaintiff ships ships ships the ship, and the Defendant was subject to the suspension of indictment on December 31, 2014 on the charge of general traffic obstruction.

【Non-contentious facts, Gap’s evidence 3, 4, Gap’s evidence 6-1, 2, Gap’s evidence 7, Eul’s evidence 6-4, 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable for damages equivalent to the profits accrued from the sale of the farmland, since the defendant did not sell the 15,000 renunciation of the distribution which was planted on the wind by planting the trees on the farm road as above.

On this basis, the defendant asserts that since the defendant had already renounced the shipment and sale of the spawn on the farm road before planting the tree, it does not constitute a tort.

B. In the instant case where the Plaintiff sought compensation for passive damages equivalent to the profits from the sale of the ship, the fact that the Defendant’s act of planting trees on the farm road was prevented from shipping and selling the ship ship in order to constitute a tort, i.e., causation should be recognized.

In addition, in order to recognize such causal relationship, the plaintiff's intention to sell excreta after December 9, 2013, which is tree planting date, has been maintained.