1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had a claim of KRW 2,00,000, and filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables with respect to the magas that were cultivated within a plastic house facilities on the ground of the Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, an agricultural product owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant magas”), and received a provisional seizure order accepting the said application under the Jeonju District Court 2015Kadan3768 on January 14, 2016 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”). On January 21, 2016, the instant provisional seizure was executed with respect to the instant magas.

B. At the time of the execution of the provisional seizure of this case, the execution officer clearly stated that the provisional seizure is the object of provisional seizure by means of a public notice in possession of the object of provisional seizure, and has preserved the right of the instant seizure to the Defendant

C. On January 27, 2016, the custodian of the instant provisional attachment was changed from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 2,00,000 as the deposit money for the provisional attachment of this case and applied for the revocation of provisional attachment execution, the provisional attachment execution of this case was revoked on January 28, 2016 by the Jeonju District Court 2016Ka35.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the execution of the provisional seizure of this case caused damage to yield and the value of the goods of this case, because the defendant did not take such measures, even though it is required to manage the habit and temperature by opening a vinyl house at an appropriate time at the time of keeping the right wave of this case due to the execution of the provisional seizure of this case, and thereby did not take such measures.

In the case of the above plastic greenhouse, the volume of the sect that can normally be harvested is approximately KRW 5,00,00 and KRW 7,500 on the basis of the goods at the time. As such, the profits that the Plaintiff could have gained by harvesting the sect of this case were KRW 37,50,000 (= KRW 5,000 x 7,500), however, due to the above blight and injury, three.