1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Presumed factual basis

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of a total of 39,849 square meters of a total of 7 lots in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, E, F, or G.

B. Defendant B leased from the Plaintiff the said seven parcels of land owned by the Plaintiff and cultivated crops by February 2, 2014, among the seven parcels of land owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. Defendant C is a livestock farmer who runs fish farming in the Socheon-gun I.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants caused a loss of KRW 30 million due to the decline in soil on the wind of disposing of livestock excreta on the land of this case owned by the Plaintiff, J, a new lessee, considered the damage of KRW 30,000,000,000.

In addition, since soil pollution is serious, it is inevitable to fill up the land of this case. The defendants should pay 100 million won as part of the construction cost to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 130 million and damages for delay.

In addition, Defendant B, as a land lessee, committed an act of worship against the Plaintiff, a lessor, in violation of the good manager’s care, and thus, Defendant B should pay consolation money of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B’s assertion that the Defendants asserted only distributed livestock excreta on the instant land upon request from Defendant C in order to improve the soil quality of the instant land and to make the instant land inefficient.

C. The fact that Defendant C spreads livestock excreta on the instant land upon Defendant B’s request for determination is no dispute between the parties.

Furthermore, due to the omission of the soil quality of the land in this case and the serious pollution level, the lessee J suffered damage by breaking the agricultural history of large wave, and it is necessary to fill the earth in order to improve soil quality.

A Evidence Nos. 2 through 9 (including paper numbers), and testimony by the witness J is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, above.