1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a veterinarian who operates a breast farm under the trade name “D” in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu. 2) The Defendant is a person operating a landscaped trees management business on the land in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu.

B. On June 29, 2017, the Defendant: (a) spreaded the first agents into dry field using high-tension weapons from Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (b) spreading the first agents to dry field.

On the other hand, there was an accident such as the death or injury of the chest farm on the other hand.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and Eul evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant spreaded the first agents with high-tension weapons at a place adjacent to the chest farm, and the Defendant died of the chest, cut the melt, reduced the melting, and fire caused damage to the chest, etc. as the chest was running in a extreme manner in the noise and threatened movement.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused thereby.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion was that the Defendant spreaded the primary system at the time, but there was no movement that could threaten large noise or chests in light of the location and structure of equipment, the details of the work, etc., and thus, it cannot be deemed that the chest was running off.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's act causes the same loss.

3. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 8, 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, witness F's testimony, and the overall purport of the pleadings as a result of the examination by this court, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that damage, such as the death of deer, was caused by the defendant's act of spraying the defendant's portrait, and there

(c) noise.