1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On August 2013, 2013, the plaintiffs asserted 1) purchased and cultivated spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn (e.g. spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn, spawn spawn spawn spawn spawn span spawn span swn spawn s

As a result, all the plaintiffs renounced harvest.

3 The plaintiffs have full experience in farming and farming, there was no problem in the soil of the plaintiffs' arable land, and there was no abnormal temperature phenomenon during the cultivation period, and blight and insect pests did not occur. The plaintiffs from around August 22, 2013, which is the appropriate time for farming.

9. By April, 900, it was depthd.

Nevertheless, the fact that the above defects occurred in the cultivation of the Plaintiffs seems to have been due to the defect in the ground of the Defendant’s worship.

4) Therefore, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiffs for damages caused by defective drillings supplied by the Defendant. However, according to the following: (a) the statement of evidence Nos. 42; (b) the video products of evidence Nos. 4, 8, 12, 16, 21, 25, 29, 34, 37, and 40 (including each number; (c) the witness J, K, and L’s testimony, the Plaintiffs were not properly active in the distribution of seeds cultivated by purchasing seedlings from the Defendant in 2013; and (d) there was any defect such as bottom and quast, etc., which was caused by germs, and that the cause was not caused by germs infection.

However, according to the witness M, N's testimony, Gap evidence No. 44-2, No. 45-2, No. 46-2, and No. 46-2, there were more damage caused by oil or credit in other areas due to high temperature of more than 2013, and soil that the plaintiffs cultivated is compared to other farmers.