1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following parts added, and thus, it is acceptable as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. The following circumstances, i.e., ① the Plaintiff transported 7 parts of the retirement truck of 25 tons from 6,000 to 7,000 to 7,000 to 25 minutes of the retirement cost to cultivate sewage first, but transported 12 parts of the total amount after being additionally supplied with five parts of the total amount of 12 minutes.

The plaintiff asserts that this can be seen as the situation where the plaintiff ordered the excessive spraying to C; ② The plaintiff argued that C would not contain half of the refund cost loaded, and that C would not have distributed a large amount of the refund cost, so that C would not cause a large amount of dust, so that C would not cause a large amount of dust, so it is argued that C would not cause a large amount of dust to the plaintiff; therefore, C would not accept the plaintiff's assertion that he had distributed half of the plaintiff's talk at the plaintiff's request, and eventually, C would have distributed the refund cost at the plaintiff's request; ③ the plaintiff sold sewage seeds to other land that has distributed a large amount of oil differently from the land of this case, but did not cause a large amount of dust due to droughts.

“The Plaintiff’s assertion that it can be seen as the circumstance that the Plaintiff did not properly supply water to his sewage field, including the instant land. ④ The Plaintiff, around 200, cultivated and sold the same medicinal herbs as that of sewage and its growing method. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the method of sewage cultivation is well known. However, there is no evidence to prove it. ⑤ The Plaintiff’s withdrawal of the Plaintiff’s medical crops for new farmers’ practice (No. 16 evidence 1, 2) 48.