1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is a person who cultivates a pet house in a plastic house, and the defendants have shot houses next to the plaintiff's vinyl house.

Defendant B’s wife D 2015

5. 18. A summary order was issued on the part of this Court No. 2015 high-ranking 1686.

On February 11, 2016, the Defendants dusted retirement expenses to the Defendants’ vinyl houses.

[Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and the entire pleadings did not seem to be good between the Plaintiff of the Pyeongtaek. Defendant B’s wife, who was ordered a summary order due to Defendant D’s crime of injury to the Plaintiff, intended to kill the Plaintiff’s plastic house, and store the Plaintiff’s plastic house for nine (9) days, left the Plaintiff’s plastic house, and left the Plaintiff’s plastic house, thereby causing malodor and poisonous gas to the Plaintiff’s plastic house, thereby causing the Plaintiff to have the Plaintiff’s abrupted, fluence, and fluence into the Plaintiff’s plastic house, and thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff’s 90% of the Plaintiff’s petbage.

The Plaintiff: (a) harvested 80,000 won (=20,000 won 】 80,000 won x 80 x 4 weeks) in a week; (b) however, the Plaintiff lost the above income due to the death of petling; and (c) the Defendants are obliged to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 38,40,00 won (6,400 won x 66 months) as well as the amount of KRW 5,00,000 as a solatium and the amount of KRW 43,40,000 as a total, and the amount of legal interest or delay damages from February 20, 2016.

Judgment

In full view of all the evidence submitted, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Defendants died of the Plaintiff’s petage because they were shoted or accumulated in the Defendants’ plastic houses, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, insofar as the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, and it cannot be recognized that the Plaintiff suffered damage due to the Defendants’ act, the Plaintiff’s assertion is not examined as to the amount of damage claimed.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified.