1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts which are written or added. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Of the third page 15 and 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The above judgment is currently pending in the final appeal by Defendant B (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16537)” was amended to read “The final appeal by Defendant B, but the final appeal was dismissed on December 29, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do16537),” and the above judgment became final and conclusive.”

Part VII of the decision of the first instance court shall add the following details to the 8th decision:

No. 335, May 16, 2015, the Defendants testified to the effect that the Defendants were unable to work due to the Defendants’ primary interference on May 16, 2015. However, M was not at the site on May 16, 2015 at the time of the Defendants’ primary interference and the following day, and was aware of the aforementioned contents. Thus, the testimony alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was able to reduce the number of seedlings that the Plaintiff was trying to work in the instant culture because of the Defendants’ primary interference. The Defendant’s primary interference with the Defendant’s primary interference with the Defendant, thereby doing the following acts:

『(3 다음으로 원고의 손해배상청구 중 K 양식장 9, 10, 11번 줄에 수하된 굴 종묘 부분에 관하여 보건대, 앞서 본 각 증거들 및 제1심 법원의 국립수산과학원 남동해연구소에 대한 사실조회 결과, 당심 증인 M의 증언에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 중간육성을 위해 굴 종묘를 바닷물에 수하할 때에는 가급적 직사광선의 노출이 적은 새벽녘이나 오전 중에 빠른 시간 내에 수하시키는 것이 일반적인데, 원고는...